*3re8C839C8g083HC83C8^^ 


•v«  • 

K-’j  l. 


i 

•• 


. 


Cardinal  John  Henry  Newman. 

S\/ 


BT 
645 
.  N4 
1909 


NEW  YORK  : 

Cbc  CatboUc  Boob  JEjcba mct 

120  West  6oth  Street. 

j  ^  '  < 


The  Question  Box. 

BY  REV.  BERTRAND  L.  CONWAY,  C.S.P. 

It  is  the  most  valuable  book  that 
has  been  issued  from  the  press  for  a 
long  time.  The  book  runs  to  over  600 
pages  and  it  answers  over  1,000  bona- 
fide  questions  that  have  come  through 
the  Question  Box,  on  the  Missions  to 
non-Catholics.  The  questions  cover 
every  phase  of  religious  inquiry.  They' 
are  all  intensely  interesting,  because 
they  are  from  actual  life. 

It  sells  for  $10  a  hundred  copies,  paper. 

In  cloth,  50  cents. 

The  Columbus  Press, 

120  West  60th  Street,  N.  Y. 


NEWMAN’S  ANSWER  TO  PUSEY 


I 


MARY, 

THE  MOTHER  OE  JESUS. 


BY 

CARDINAL  JOHN  HENRY  NEWMAN. 


Being  a  Letter  addressed  to  Rev.  E.  B.  Pusey,  D.D.,  in  1864,  in  answer 
to  his  Objections  to  the  Catholic  Doctrine  and  Practice 
concerning  Mary,  the  Mother  of  Jesus. 


New  York  : 

Gbe  CatboUc  JBoofc  jEjcbattoe, 

120  West  60th  Street. 


1909. 


£ 


29018” 


BOSTON  COLLEGE  LIMSKY 

CHEST!'  T  »-tVT  t  lyjjfcSR 

fcT 


\W 


\ 


S  ' 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

Preface, . 7 

■  [  .  »  '  i 

CHAPTER  I. 

Introductory  Remarks  :  Observations  on  the  Motives 
of  Catholics  and  of  Anglicans  in  clearing  away 
Obstacles  to  Union,  .  .  .  ,  .  .  .  n 

CHAPTER  II. 

Incidental  Statements  in  Dr.  Pusey’s  Pamphlet  : 
Anglicanism  a  “  serviceable  breakwater  ”  against  Infi¬ 
delity. — How  Scripture  and  Tradition  are  related  to 
each  other.— Remarks  on  Tract  90,  and  on  the  Es¬ 
say  on  Development  of  Doctrine. — Attitude  of  a  Con¬ 
vert  towards  the  Church  and  his  Fellow-Catholics. — 

“  I  prefer  English  Habits  of  Belief  and  Devotion  to 
Foreign  Ones.” — Dr.  Griffiths  “warned  me  against 
Books  of  Devotion  of  the  Italian  School.” — Nothing 
learned  in  Rome  inconsistent  with  this. — Who  are 
Spokesmen  for  English  Catholics  and  who  are  not. — 

The  Fathers  of  the  Church  are  good  Evidence  of  the 
present  Faith  of  Catholics  concerning  the  Blessed 
Virgin,  .  . . 18 

CHAPTER  III. 

Belief  as  distinct  from  Devotion. — Devotion  to 
Mary  has  increased  in  the  Course  of  Ages,  but  the 
Doctrine  has  been  the  same  from  the  Beginning. — 

Faith  and  Devotion  Compared. — Liberty  of  Devotion 
among  Catholics. — Diversified  Devotions  the  Accumu¬ 
lation  of  Centuries. — Evidences  from  Sacred  History,  34 

3 


4 


Contents. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Mary  the  Second  Eve  in  the  Early  Church  :  This 
was  the  rudimental  Teaching  of  Christian  Antiquity. — 
The  Ancient  Fathers  made  a  Parallelism  between 
Eve  in  the  Fall  of  Man  and  Mary  in  the  Redemp¬ 
tion. — Testimony  of  St.  Justin  Martyr  representing  the 
early  Belief  of  Palestine. — Tertullian,  who  speaks  for 
Africa  and  Rome. — St.  Irenaeus,  representing  Asia 
Minor  and  Gaul,  as  well  as  St.  John  the  Evangelist, 
who  taught  his  Master,  St.  Polycarp. — These  Fathers 
teach  that  Mary  was  not  a  mere  Instrument  of  the 
Incarnation,  but  freely  and  meritoriously  co-operated. 
— The  Worth  of  the  concurrent  Testimony  of  these 
earliest  of  the  Fathers. — Testimony  of  the  Fathers  of 
the  succeeding  Era :  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  St. 
Ephrem,  St.  Epiphanius,  St.  Jerome,  St.  Peter  Chry- 
sologus,  St.  Fulgentius, . 

CHAPTER  V. 

The  Immaculate  Conception  :  True  and  False  No¬ 
tions  of  the  Immaculate  Conception. — This  Doctrine 
flows  from  that  of  the  Second  Eve. — Remarks  on 
Original  Sin  and  on  the  Manner  of  Mary’s  Exemp¬ 
tion  from  it. — St.  Augustine’s  Teaching  of  the  Doc¬ 
trine,  . 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Mary’s  Dignity:  Reflections  on  Mary’s  Historical  Posi¬ 
tion  in 'the  Gospels. — What  was  She  in  Merit  and  in 
Office  and  as  a  Model  ? — Mary’s  Exaltation  taught  by 
the  Vision  of  the  Woman  and  Child  in  the  Apoca¬ 
lypse. — Antiquity  of  the  Picture  and  Image  of  the 
Virgin  and  Child. — Brief  Exposition  of  St.  John’s 
•  Vision. — Concurrent  Teaching  of  Scripture,  Tradition 
of  both  East  and  West,  and  of  the  Fathers, 


Contents. 


5 


CHAPTER  VII. 

•  p^ge 

The  Mother  of  Jesus  is  the  Mother  of  God:  The 
Title  of  Theotocos  among  the  Greek  Fathers. — Used 
by  the  General  Council  of  Ephesus  to  express  the 
Divinity  of  Christ. — Universally  used  in  the  Ancient 
Church. — Quotations  from  many  Fathers  of  both  West 
and  East, . S9 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

Mary’s  Intercessory  Power:  Union  in  Intercessory 
Prayer  among  the  Living  is  a  vital  Characteristic  of 
the  Christian  Church. — Is  this  spiritual  Bond  to  cease 

/'i  - 

with  Life  ? — Scripture  and  Christian  Antiquity  answer 
in  the  Negative. — The  Vital  Force  of  Intercession  is 
Sanctity. — Proved  by  many  Scripture  Texts. — The 
Mother  of  Jesus  being  the  holiest  of  Creatures  is  the 
foremost  of  Intercessors  with  Christ. — Growth  of  De¬ 
votion  to  Mary  in  proportion  to  realization  in  the 
Church  of  Her  Dignity  and  Sanctity. — The  Miraculous 
Creed  of  St.  Gregory  Thaumaturgus. — Special  Value 
in  this  Age  of  the  revealed  Doctrine  and  Events  in 
which  Mary  has  a  part,  and  of  Her  Intercession,  .  75 

CHAPTER  IX. 

Belief  of  Catholics  as  Colored  by  Their  Devo¬ 
tion  :  Rule  to  be  followed  in  criticising  Devotional 
Practices. — Not  to  be  held  to  abstract  Rules  of  Pro¬ 
priety  any  more  than  Love-letters. — “  The  Religion  of 
the  Multitude  is  ever  Vulgar  and  Abnormal.” — Logic 
is  overtaxed  in  trying  to  follow  and  control  Devotion¬ 
al  Instincts. — Contrast  between  Jesus  and  Mary  as 
Centres  of  Devotional  Attraction. — The  Cause  of  De- 
votion  to  Mary  is  God’s  Act  in  making  Her  the  Mo¬ 
ther  of  the  Incarnate  Word. — Influence  of  the  Arian 
Controversy  on  Devotion  to  Mary,  ...»  83 


6 


Contents . 


CHAPTER  X. 

Protestant  Misconceptions  and  Catholic  Ex¬ 
cesses  :  Harshness  of  Condemnation  often  arises  from 
Low  Views  of  Christ’s  Divinity. — Suggestiveness  of 
the  Devotional  Extravagances  in  the  Greek  Church. — 
Many  Allegations  of  Excess  not  Proven. — A  Fair 
Specimen  given  of  the  Teaching  of  sound  Catholic 
Devotional  Writers. — The  Lesson  of  the  Sanctuary 
Lamp,  of  the  Mass,  and  of  Communion. — A  Hymn  of 
Father  Faber’s  given  as  a  Summary  of  Catholic  Sen¬ 
timent. — Remarks  on  Extravagant  Utterances  found 
in  Italian  Writers. — Absence  of  Devotional  Extrava¬ 
gance  among  typical  English  Writers. — The  Raccolta 
as  an  Authoritative  Exponent  of  Catholic  Devotion. — 
The  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent. — Some  Ex¬ 
travagant  Utterances  mentioned  and  condemned. — 
True  Meaning  of  Statements  about  Mary’s  Power  to 
assist  us  to  save  our  Souls. — Standard  Catholic  Wri¬ 
ters  Quoted. — Note  on  a  recent  Roman  Decision  on 
certain  Practices  and  Terms. — Remarks  on  Dr.  Pusey’s 
Method  and  Spirit  in  this  Controversy, 

Note. — The  anomalous  statements  of  St.  Basil,  St.  Chry¬ 
sostom,  and  St.  Cyril  about  the  Blessed  Virgin, 


PAGE 


93 


1 21 


PUBLISHER’S  PREFACE. 


\  S  Cardinal  Newman  in  this  treatise  takes  for 
granted  a  knowledge ‘of  the  Scripture  references 
to  Mary,  we  prefix  the  chief  ones  from  the  New  Tes¬ 
tament,  for  the  use  of  readers  who  are  unfamiliar 
with  them.  We  use  the  Protestant  version  : 

St.  Luke' s  (i.  28)  account  of  the  Incarnation ,  showing 
Mary’s  freedom  of  choice,  and  her  relation  to  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  the  work  of  the  Incarnation. 

“And  the  angel  came  in  unto  her,  and  said,  Hail, 
thou  that  are  highly  favored  (Hail,  full  of  grace — 
Catholic  version) ,  the  Lord  is  with  thee  :  blessed  art 
thou  among  women.  And  when  she  saw  him  she 
was  troubled  at  his  saying,  and  cast  in  her  mind 
what  manner  of  salutation  this  should  be.  And  the 
angel  said  unto  her,  Fear  not,  Mary  :  for  thou  hast 
found  favor  with  God.  And,  behold,  thou  shalt  con¬ 
ceive  in  thy  womb,  and  bring  forth  a  Son,  and  shalt 
call  his  name  JKSUS.  He  shall  be  great,  and  shall  be 
called  the  Son  of  the  Highest ;  and  the  Lord  God  shall 
give  unto  him  the  throne  of  his  father  David :  and 
he  shall  reign  over  the  house  of  Jacob  for  ever,  and 
of  his  kingdom  there  shall  be  no  end.  Then  said 
Mary  unto  the  angel,  How  shall  this  be,  seeing  I 
know  not  a  man  ?  And  the  angel  answered  and  said 


7 


8 


Publisher  $  Preface . 


unto  her,  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and 
the  power  of  the  Highest  shall  overshadow  thee : 

therefore  also  that  holy  thing  which  shall  be  born  of 

✓ 

thee  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God.  And,  behold, 
thy  cousin  Elizabeth,  she  hath  also  conceived  a  son 
in  her  old  age ;  and  this  is  the  sixth  month  with  her, 
who  was  called  barren.  F.or  with  God  nothing  shall 
be  impossible.  And  Mary  said :  Behold  the  hand¬ 
maid  of  the  Eord ;  be  it  unto  me  according  to  thy 
word.” 

St.  Elizabeth' s  estimation  of  Mary's  dignity  (St. 
Euke  i.  41)  :  “And  it  came  to  pass  that,  when 
Elizabeth  heard  the  salutation  of  Mary,  the  babe 
leaped  in  her  womb  ;  and  Elizabeth  was  filled  with 
the  Holy  Ghost  :  and  she  spake  out  with  a  loud  voice 
and  said,  Blessed  art  thou  among  women,  and  blessed 
is  the  fruit  of  thy  womb.  And  whence  is  this  to  me, 
that  the  mother  of  my  Eord  should  come  to  me  ?  For, 
lo,  as  soon  as  the  voice  of  thy  salutation  sounded  in 
mine  ears,  the  babe  leaped  in  my  womb  for  joy.  And 
blessed  is  she  that  believed  :  for  there  shall  be  a  per¬ 
formance  of  those  things  which  were  told  her  from  the 
Eord.” 

Mary's  prophecy  (St.  Euke  i.  46)  :  “And  Mary  said, 
My  soul  doth  magnify  the  Eord,  and  my  spirit  hath  re- 

v  t-  •  - 

joiced  in  God  my  Saviour.  For  he  hath  regarded  the 
low  estate  of  his  handmaiden  :  for,  behold,  from  hence¬ 
forth  all  generations  shall  call  me  blessed.  For  he  that 
is  mighty  hath  done  to  me  great  things,  and  holy  is  his 


name. 


Publisher  s  Preface. 


9 


Mary" s  finding  of  the  child  fesus  in  the  temple  (St. 
Luke  ii. ) ,  in  the  midst  of  the  doctors  of  the  law  ;  show¬ 
ing  her  relation  to  his  office  of  teacher  and  her  maternal 
influence  in  postponing  its  exercise.  “  And  when  they 
saw  him  they  were  amazed  :  and  his  mother  said  unto 
him,  Son,  why  hast  thou  thus  dealt  with  us?  behold, 
thy  father  and  I  have  sought  thee  sorrowing.  And  he 
said  unto  them,  How  is  it  that  ye  sought  me  ?  Wist  ye 
not  that  I  must  be  about  my  Father’s  business?  And 
they  understood  not  the  saying  which  he  spake  unto 
them.  And  he  went  down  with  them,  and  came  to 
Nazareth,  and  was  subject  unto  them:  but  his  mother 
kept  all  these  sayings  in  her  heart.” 

Mary" s  hiflue?ice  at  the  wedding  in  Cana  ;  hastening 
the  public  manifestation  of  our  Saviour’s  glory  (St. 
John  ii.  i)  :  “  And  the  third  day  there  was  a  marriage 
in  Cana  of  Galilee  ;  and  the  mother  of  Jesus  was  there  : 
and  both  Jesus  was  called,  and  his  disciples,  to  the  mar¬ 
riage.  And  when  they  wanted  wine  the  mother  of  Jesus 
saith  unto  him,  They  have  no  wine.  Jesus  saitli  unto 
her,  Woman,  what  have  I  to  do  with  thee?  (What 
is  that  to  me  and  to  thee? — Catholic  version.)  Mine 
hour  is  not  yet  come.  His  mother  saith  unto  the 
servants,  Whatsoever  he  saith  unto  you,  do  it.  (Here 
follows  the  miracle  of  the  changing  of  the  water  into 
wine.)  This  beginning  of  miracles  did  Jesus  in  Cana 
of  Galilee,  and  manifested  forth  his  glory  ;  and  his  dis¬ 
ciples  believed  on  him.” 

Mary" s  relation  to  our  Saviour's  atonement ,  as  shown 
by  Simeon’s  prophecy  of  her  suffering  (St.  Luke  ii.  34)  : 


IO 


Publisher  s  Preface. 


“And  Simeon  blessed  them,  and  said  unto  Mary  his 
mother,  Behold,  this  child  is  set  for  the  fall  and  rising 
again  of  many  in  Israel  ;  and  for  a  sign  which  shall  be 
spoken  against  (yea,  a  sword  shall  pierce  through  thy 
own  soul  also) ,  that  the  thoughts  of  many  hearts  may 
be  revealed.” 

The  bestowal  of  St.  fohn  upon  Maiy  as  her  son ,  he 
standing  for  us  all  :  “  Now  there  stood  by  the  cross  of 
Jesus  his  mother,  and  his  mother’s  sister,  Mary  the 
wife  of  Cleophas,  and  Mary  Magdalene.  When  Jesus 
therefore  saw  his  mother,  and  the  disciple  standing  by, 
whom  he  loved,  he  saith  unto  his  mother,  Woman, 

i 

behold  thy  son  !  Then  saith  he  to  the  disciple,  Behold 
thy  mother !  And  from  that  hour  that  disciple  took  her 
unto  his  own  home."  (The  word  home  is  not  in  the  ori¬ 
ginal  Greek,  and  therefore  is  printed  in  the  Protestant 
version  in  italics.) 

To  facilitate  the  use  of  this  splendid  defence  of 
Catholic  doctrine  and  devotion,  we  have  marked  the 
divisions  off  as  chapters,  and  have  prefixed  to  each  one 
a  summary  of  its  contents. 


Mary,  the  Mother  of  Jesus. 


CHAPTER  I. 


INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS. 


Observations  on  the  Motives  of  Catholics  and  of 
Anglicans  in  clearing  away  Obstacles  to  Union. 

ft  •  sf 

NO  one  who  desires  the  union  of  Christendom  after  its 
many  and  long-standing  divisions  can  have  any 
other  feeling  than  joy,  my  dear  Pusey,  at  finding  from 
your  recent  volume  that  you  see  your  way  to  make 
definite  proposals  to  us  for  effecting  that  great  object, 
and  are  able  to  lay  down  the  basis  and  conditions  on 
which  you  could  co-operate  in  advancing  it.  It  is  not 
necessary  that  we  should  concur  in  the  details  of  your 
scheme,  or  in  the  principles  which  it  involves,  in  order 
to  welcome  the  important  fact  that,  with  your  personal 
knowledge  of  the  Anglican  body,  and  your  experience 
of  its  composition  and  tendencies,  you  consider  the 
time  to  be  come  when  you  and  your  friends  may,  with¬ 
out  imprudence,  turn  your  minds  to  the  contemplation 
of  such  an  enterprise.  Even  were  you  an  individual 
member  of  that  Church,  a  watchman  upon  a  high 
tower  in  a  metropolis  of  religious  opinion,  we  should 
naturally  listen  with  interest  to  what  you  had  to  report 
of  the  state  of  the  sky  and  the  progress  of  the  night, 

ii 


12 


Introductory  Remarks . 


what  stars  were  mounting  up  or  what  clouds  gathering, 
what  were  the  prospects  of  the  three  great  parties 
which  Anglicanism  contains  within  it,  and  what  wTas 
just  now  the  action  upon  them  respectively  of  the  poli¬ 
tics  and  science  of  the  time.  You  do  not  go  into  these 
matters ;  but  the  step  you  have  taken  is  evidently  the 
measure  and  the  issue  of  the  view  which  you  have 
formed  of  them  all. 

However,  you  are  not  a  mere  individual ;  from  early 
youth  you  have  devoted  yourself  to  the  Established 
Church,  and,  after  between  forty  and  fifty  years  of  un¬ 
remitting  labor  in  its  service,  your  roots  and  your 
branches  stretch  out  through  every  portion  of  its  large 
territory.  You,  more  than  any  one  else  alive,  have 
been  the  present  and  untiring  agent  by  whom  a  great 
work  has  been  effected  in  it ;  and,  far  more  than  is 
usual,  you  have  received  in  your  lifetime,  as  well  as 
merited,  the  confidence  of  your  brethren.  You  cannot 
speak  merely  for  yourself;  your  antecedents,  your  exist¬ 
ing  influence,  are  a  pledge  to  us,  that  what  you  may 
determine  will  be  the  determination  of  a  multitude. 
Numbers,  too,  for  whom  you  cannot  properly  be  said  to 
speak,  will  be  moved  by  your  authority  or  your  argu¬ 
ments  ;  and  numbers,  again,  who  are  of  a  school  more 
recent  than  your  own,  and  who  are  only  not  your 
followers  because  they  have  outstripped  you  in  their 
free  speeches  and  demonstrative  acts  in  our  behalf,  will, 
for  the  occasion,  accept  you  as  their  spokesman. 
There  is  no  one  anywhere — among  ourselves,  in  your 
own  body,  or,  I  suppose,  in  the  Greek  Church— who 
can  affect  so  large  a  circle  of  men,  so  virtuous,  so  able, 
so  learned,  so  zealous,  as  come,  more  or  less,  under 
your  influence  ;  and  I  cannot  pay  them  a  greater  com¬ 
pliment  than  to  tell  them  they  ought  all  to  be  Catholics, 
nor  do  them  a  more  affectionate  service  than  to  pray 


Introductory  Remarks. 


13 


tliat  they  may  one  day  become  such.  Nor  can  I  ad¬ 
dress  myself  to  an  act  more  pleasing,  as  I  trust,  to  the 
Divine  Dord  of  the  Church,  or  more  loyal  and  dutiful  to 
His  Vicar  on  earth,  than  to  attempt,  however  feebly,  to 
promote  so  great  a  consummation. 

I  know  the  joy  it  would  give  those  conscientious 
men,  of  whom  I  am  speaking,  to  be  one  with  ourselves. 
I  know  how  their  hearts  spring  up  with  a  spontaneous 
transport  at  the  very  thought  of  union ;  and  what 
yearning  is  theirs  after  that  great  privilege,  which  they 
have  not,  communion  with  the  see  of  Peter,  and  its 
present,  past,  and  future.  I  conjecture  it  by  what  I 
used  to  feel  myself,  while  yet  in  the  Anglican  Church. 
I  recollect  well  what  an  outcast  I  seemed  to  myself, 
when  I  took  down  from  the  shelves  of  my  library  the 
volumes  of  St.  Athanasius  or  St.  Basil,  and  set  myself 
to  study  them ;  and  how,  on  the  contrary,  when  at 
length  I  was  brought  into  Catholic  communion,  I 
kissed  them  with  delight,  with  a  feeling  that  in  them  I 
had  more  than  all  that  I  had  lost ;  and,  as  though  I 
were  directly  addressing  the  glorious  saints,  who  be¬ 
queathed  them  to  the  Church,  how  I  said  to  the  inani¬ 
mate  pages,  “  You  are  now  mine,  and  I  am  now  yours, 
beyond  any  mistake.”  Such,  I  conceive,  would  be  the 
joy  of  the  persons  I  speak  of,  if  they  could  wake  up 
one  morning,  and  find  themselves  rightfully  possessed 
of  Catholic  traditions  and  hopes,  without  violence  to 
their  own  sense  of  duty ;  and,  certainly,  I  am  the  last 
man  to  say  that  such  violence  is  in  any  case  lawful,  • 
that  the  claims  of  conscience  are  not  paramount,  or  that 
any  one  may  overleap  what  he  deliberately  holds  to  be 
God’s  command,  in  order  to  make  his  path  easier  for 
him  or  his  heart  lighter. 

I  am  the  last  man  to  quarrel  with  them  for  this  jeal¬ 
ous  deference  to  the  voice  of  their  conscience,  whatever 


■4 


Introductory  Remarks. 


be  the  judgment  that  others  may  form  of  them  in  con¬ 
sequence,  for  this  reason,  because  their  present  circum¬ 
stances  have  once,  as  you  know,  been  my  own.  You 
recollect  well  what  hard  things  were  said  against  us 
twenty-five  years  ago,  which  we  knew  in  our  hearts  we 
did  not  deserve.  Accordingly,  I  am  now  in  the  posi¬ 
tion  of  the  fugitive  Queen  in  the  well-known  passage  ; 
who,  “non  ignara  mali”  herself,  had  learned  to 
sympathize  writh  those  who  were  the  inheritors  of  her 
past  wanderings.  There  were  priests,  good  men,  whose 
zeal  outstripped  their  knowledge,  and  who  in  conse¬ 
quence  spoke  confidently,  when  it  would  have  been 
wiser  in  them  to  have  suspended  their  adverse  judgment 
of  those  whom,  in  no  long  time,  they  had  to  welcome  as 
brethren  in  communion.  We  at  that  time  were  in 
worse  plight  than  your  friends  are  now,  for  our  oppo¬ 
nents  put  their  very  hardest  thoughts  of  us  into  print. 
One  of  them  wrote  thus  in  a  letter  addressed  to  one  of 
the  Catholic  bishops  : 

‘  ‘  That  this  Oxford  crisis  is  a  real  progress  to 
Catholicism,  I  have  all  along  considered  a  perfect 
delusion.  ...  I  look  upon  Mr.  Newman,  Dr. 
Pusey,  and  their  associates,  as  wily  and  crafty,  though 
unskilful  guides.  .  .  .  The  embrace  of  Mr.  New¬ 
man  is  the  kiss  that  would  betray  us.  .  .  .  But, 

what  is  the  most  striking  feature  in  the  rancorous 
malignity  of  these  men,  their  calumnies  are  often 
lavished  upon  us,  when  we  should  be  led  to  think  that 
the  subject-matter  of  their  treatises  closed  every  avenue 
against  their  vituperation.  The  three  last  volumes  [of 
the  Tracts]  have  opened  my  eyes  to  the  craftiness  and 
the  cunning,  as  well  as  the  malice,  of  the  members  of 
the  Oxford  Convention.  ...  If  the  Pusey ites  are 
to  be  the  new  Apostles  of  Great  Britain,  my  hopes  for 
my  country  are  lowering  and  gloomy.  ...  I 


Introductory  Remarks . 


15 


would  never  have  consented  to  enter  the  lists  against 
this  strange  confraternity  ...  if  I  did  not  feel 
that  my  own  Prelate  was  opposed  to  the  guile  and 
treachery  of  these  men.  ...  I  impeach  Dr.  Pusey 
and  his  friends  of  a  deadly  hatred  of  our  religion. 

.  .  .  What,  my  lord,  would  the  Holy  See  think  of 

the  works  of  these  Pusey ites  ?  .'  .  .” 

Another  priest,  himself  a  convert,  wrote  : 

“As  we  approach  towards  Catholicity,  our  love  and 
respect  increases,  and  our  violence  dies  away ;  but  the 
bulk  of  these  men  become  more  rabid  as  they  become 
like  Rome — a  plain  proof  of  their  designs.  ...  I 
do  not  believe  that  they  are  any  nearer  the  portals  of 
the  Catholic  Church  than  the  most  prejudiced  Method¬ 
ist  and  Evangelical  preacher.  .  .  .  Such,  Rev. 

Sir,  is  an  outline  of  my  views  on’  the  Oxford  move-; 
ment.” 

I  do  not  say  that  such  a  view  of  us  was  unnatural  ; 
and,  for  myself,  I  readily  confess,  that  I  had  at  one 
time  used  about  the  Church  such  language,  that  I  had 
no  claim  on  Catholics  for  any  mercy.  But,  after  all, 
and  in  fact,  they  were  wrong  in  their  anticipations,  nor 
did  their  brother  Catholics  agree  with  them  at  the 
time.  Especially  Dr.  Wiseman  (coadjutor  bishop  as 
he  was  then)  took  a  larger  and  more  generous  view  of 
us,  nor  did  the  Holy  See  interfere  against  us,  though 
the  writer  of  one  of  these  passages  invoked  its  judg¬ 
ment.  The  event  showed  that  the  more  cautious  line 
of  conduct  was  the  more  prudent;  and  one  of  the 
bishops,  who  had  taken  part  against  us,  with  a  super¬ 
erogation  of  charity,  sent  me  on  his  death-bed  an  ex¬ 
pression  of  his  sorrow  for  having  in  past  years  mis¬ 
trusted  me.  A  faulty  conscience,  faithfully  obeyed, 
through  God’s  mercy,  had  in  the  long-run  brought,  me 
right. 


1 6 


Introductory  Remarks. 


Fully,  then,  do  I  recognize  the  rights  of  conscience 
in  this  matter.  I  find  no  fault  with  your  stating,  as 
clearly  and  completely  as  you  can,  the  difficulties  which 
stand  in  the  way  of  your  joining  us.  I  cannot  wonder 
that  you  begin  with  stipulating  conditions  of  union, 
though  I  do  not  concur  in  them  myself,  and  think  that 
in  the  event  you  yourself  would  be  content  to  let  them 
drop.  Such  representations  as  yours  are  necessary  to 
open  the  subject  in  debate;  they  ascertain  how  the  land 
lies,  and  serve  to  clear  the  ground.  Thus  I  begin  :  but 
after  allowing  as  much  as  this,  I  am  obliged  in  honesty 
to  add  what  I  fear,  my  dear  Pusey,  will  pain  you. 

•  Yet  I  am  confident,  my  very  dear  friend,  that  at  least 
you  will  not  be  angry  with  me  if  I  say,  what  I  must 
say  if  I  say  anything  at  all,  viz.,  that  there  is  much, 
both  in  the  matter  and  in  the  manner  of  your  volume, 
calculated  to  wound  those  who  love  you  well,  but  love 
truth  more.  So  it  is ;  with  the  best  motives  and 
kindest  intentions — “  Csedimur,  et  totidem  plagis  Con- 
sumimus  hostem.”  We  give  you  a  sharp  cut,  and  you 
return  it.  You  complain  of  our  being  “  dry,  hard,  and 
unsympathizing  ”  ;  and  we  answer  that  you  are  unfair 
and  irritating.  But  we  at  least  have  not  professed  to 
be  composing  an  Irenicon,  when  we  were  treating  you 
as  foes.  There  was  one  of  old  time  who  wreathed  his 
sword  in  myrtle  ;  excuse  me — you  discharge  your  olive- 
branch  as  if  from  a  catapult. 

Do  not  think  I  am  not  serious  ;  if  I  spoke  as  serious¬ 
ly  as  I  feel,  I  should  seem  to  speak  harshly.  Who  will 
venture  to  assert,  that  the  hundred  pages  which  you 
have  devoted  to  the  subject  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  give 
other  than  a  one-sided  view  of  our  teaching  about  her, 
little  suited  to  win  us  ?  This  may  be  a  salutary  casti¬ 
gation  of  us,  if  any  of  us  have  fairly  provoked  it ;  but 
it  is  not  making  the  best  of  matters ;  it  is  not  smooth- 


Introductory  Remarks. 


17 

ing  the  way  for  an  understanding  or  a  compromise. 
Your  representation  of  wliat  we  hold  leads  a  writer  in 
the  most  moderate  and  liberal  Anglican  newspaper  of 
the  day,  the  Guardian ,  to  turn  away  from  us,  shocked 
and  dismayed.  “  It  is  language,”  says  your  reviewer, 
“which,  after  having  often  heard  it,  we  still  can  only 
hear  with  horror.  We  had  rather  not  quote  any  of  it, 
or  of  the  comments  upon  it.”  What  could  an  Exeter 
Hall  orator,  what  could  a  Scotch  commentator  on  the 
Apocalypse,  do  more  for  his  own  side  of  the  controversy 
in  the  picture  he  drew  of  us?  You  may  be  sure  that 
charges  which  create  horror  on  one  side,  will  be  repelled 
by  indignation  on  the  other ;  and  these  are  not  the  most 
favorable  dispositions  of  mind  for  a  peace  conference. 
I  had  been  accustomed  to  suppose  that  you,  who  in 
times  past  were  ever  less  declamatory  in  controversy 
than  myself,  now  that  years  had  gone  on,  and  circum¬ 
stances  changed,  had  come  to  look  on  our  old  warfare 
against  Rome  as  cruel  and  inexpedient.  Indeed,  I 
know  that  it  was  a  chief  objection  urged  only  last  year 
against  the  scheme  then  in  agitation  of  introducing  the 
Oratory  into  Oxford,  that  such  an  undertaking  on  my 
part  would  be  a  signal  for  the  rekindling  of  that  fierce 
style  of  polemics  which  is  now  long  out  of  date.  I  had 
fancied  you  shared  in  that  opinion  ;  but  now,  as  if  to 
show  how  imperative  you  deem  the  renewal  of  that  old 
violence,  you  actually  bring  to  life  one  of  my  own  strong 
sayings  in  1841,  which  had  long  been  in  the  grave, 
that  ‘  ‘  the  Roman  Church  comes  as  near  to  idolatry  as 
can  be  supposed  in  a  Church  of  which  it  is  said,  ‘  The 
idols  He  shall  utterly  abolish’  ”  (P.  111). 


CHAPTER  II. 


INCIDENTAL  STATEMENTS  IN  DR.  PUSEY’S 

pamphlet. 


Anglicanism  a  “Serviceable  Breakwater”  against 
Infidelity. — How  Scripture  and  Tradition  are  re¬ 
lated  TO  EACH  OTHER. — REMARKS  ON  TRACT  90,  AND 
on  tit 3  Essay  on  Development  of  Doctrine. — At¬ 
titude  of  a  Convert  towards  the  Church  and 
his  Fellow-Catholics. — “I  prefer  English  Habits 
of  Bel, Ilf  and  Devotion  to  Foreign  Ones.” — Dr. 
Griffiths  “warned  me  against  Books  of  Devotion 
of  thb';  Italian  School.” — Nothing  learned  in 
Rom  1  inconsistent  with  this. — Who  are  Spokes¬ 
men  for  English  Catholics  and  who  are  not. — 
The  Fathers  of  the  Church  are  good  Evidence 
of  the  present  Faith  of  Catholics  concerning 
the  Blessed  Virgin. 

I  KNOW,  indeed,  and  feel  deeply,  that  your  frequent 
references,  in  your  volume,  to  what  I  have  lately  or 
formerly  written,  are  caused  by  your  strong  desire  to  be 
still  one  with  me  as  far  as  you  can,  and  by  that  true  af¬ 
fection,  which  takes  pleasure  in  dwelling  on  such  say¬ 
ings  of  mine  as  you  can  still  accept  with  the  full  appro¬ 
bation  of  your  judgment.  I  trust  I  am  not  ungrateful 
or  irresponsive  to  >ou  in  this  respect  ;  but  other  consid¬ 
erations  have  an  imperative  claim  to  be  taken  into 
account.  Pleasant  as  it  is  to  agree  with  you,  I  am 
bound  to  explain  myself  in  cases  in  which  I  have 

is 


Various  Statements  in  the  Eirenicon. 


*9 


changed  my  mind,  or  have  given  a  wrong  impression 
of  my  meaning,  or  have  been  wrongly  reported  ;  and, 
while  I  trust  that  I  have  higher  than  mere  personal  mo¬ 
tives  for  addressing  }^ou  in  print,  yet  it  will  serve  to 
introduce  my  main  subject,  and  give  me  an  opportunity 
for  remarks  which  bear  upon  it  indirectly,  if  I  dwell  for 
a  page  or  two  on  such  matters  contained  in  your  volume 
as  concern  myself. 

i .  The  mistake  which  I  have  principally  in  view  is 
the  belief,  which  is  widely  spread,  that  I  have  publicly 
spoken  of  the  Anglican  Church  as  ‘  ‘  the  great  bulwai'k 
against  infidelity  in  this  land.”  In  a  pamphlet  of  yours 
a  year  old,  you  spoke  of  “  a  very  earnest  body  of 
Roman  Catholics,”  who  “rejoice  in  all  the  workings 
of  God  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  Church  of  England 
(whatever  they  think  of  her),  and  are  saddened  by 
what  weakens  her  who  is,  in  God’s  hands,  the  great 
bulwark  against  infidelity  in  this  land.”  The  conclud¬ 
ing  words  you  were  thought  to  quote  from  my  Apologia. 
In  consequence,  Dr.  Manning,  now  our  Archbishop, 
replied  to  you,  asserting,  as  you  say,  the  “  contradic¬ 
tory  of  that  statement.”  In  that  counter-assertion,  he 
was  at  the  time  generally  considered  (rightly  or  wrong¬ 
ly  as  it  may  be),  though  writing  to  you,  to  be  really 
glancing  at  my  Apologia ,  and  correcting  it,  without 
introducing  my  name,  where  he  thought  it  needed  cor¬ 
rection.  Further,  in  the  volume,  which  you  have  now 
published,  you  recur  to  the  phrase  ;  and  you  speak  of 
its  author  in  terms  which,  did  I  not  know  your  partial 
kindness  for  me,  would  hinder  me  from  identifying  him 
with  myself.  You  say:  “The  saying  was  not  mine, 
but  that  of  one  of  the  deepest  thinkers  and  observers  in 
the  Roman  Communion”  (p.  7).  A  friend  has  sug¬ 
gested  to  me  that  perhaps  you  mean  De  Maistre  ;  and, 
from  an  anonymous  letter  which  I  have  received  from 


20 


Various  incidental  Statements 


Dublin,  I  find  it  is  certain  that  the  very  words  in 
question  were  once  used  by  Archbishop  Murray  ;  how¬ 
ever,  you  speak  of  the  author  of  them  as  if  now  alive. 
At  length,  a  reviewer  of  your  volume  in  the  Weekly 
Register ,  distinctly  attributes  them  to  me  by  name,  and 
gives  me  the  first  opportunity  I  have  had  of  disowning 
them  ;  and  this  I  now  do.  What,  at  some  time  or 
other,  I  may  have  said  in  conversation  or  in  private 
letter,  of  course  I  cannot  tell ;  but  I  have  never,  I  am 
sure,  used  the  word  “bulwark”  of  the  Anglican 
Church  deliberately,  or  speaking  of  it  in  its  religious 
aspect,  nor,  as  I  think,  at  all.*  What  I  said  in  my 
Apologia  was  this:  that  that  Church  was  “  a  service¬ 
able  breakwater  against  errors  more  fundamental  than 
its  own.”  A  bulwark  is  an  integral  part  of  the  thing  it 
defends  ;  whereas  the  word  ‘  ‘  breakwater  ’  ’  implies  such 
a  protection  of  the  Catholic  truth  as  is,  in  its  nature, 
accidental  and  de  facto  ;  and  again,  such  a  protection  as 
does  not  utterly  exclude  error,  but  detracts  from  its 
volume  and  force.  “  Serviceable,”  too,  implies  a  some¬ 
thing  external  to  the  thing  served.  Again,  in  saying 
that  the  Anglican  Church  is  a  defence  against  “errors 
more  fundamental  than  its  own,”  I  imply  that  it  has 
errors,  and  those  fundamental. 

2.  There  is  another  passage  of  your  book,  at  p.  337, 
which  it  may  be  right  to  observe  upon.  You  have 
made  a  collection  of  passages  from  the  Fathers,  as  wit¬ 
nesses  in  behalf  of  your  doctrine  that  the  whole  Chris¬ 
tian  faith  is  contained  in  Scripture,  as  if,  in  your  sense 
of  the  words,  Catholics  contradicted  you  here.  And 
you  refer  to  my  Notes  on  St.  Athanasius  as  contribut¬ 
ing  passages  to  your  list ;  but  after  all,  neither  do  you, 

*  In  the  former  of  these  volumes,  p.  i,  speaking  of  “  Institutions  ”  (/.  e ., 
“the  Church  and  Universities  of  the  nation”),  I  call  them  “  the  only  politic 
cal  bulwarks”  remaining  of  the  “  dogmatic  principle.” 


in  the  Eirenicon. 


21 


nor  do  I  in  my  Notes,  affirm  any  doctrine  which  Rome 
denies.  Those  Notes  also  make  frequent  reference  to 
a  traditional  teaching,  which  (be  the  faith  ever  so  cer¬ 
tainly  contained  in  Scripture),  still  is  necessary  as  a 
Regula  Fidei,  for  showing  us  that  it  is  contained  there 
(vid.  pp.  283,  341)  ;*  and  this  tradition,  I  know,  you 
uphold  as  fully  as  I  do  in  the  Notes  in  question.  In 
consequence,  you  allow  that  there  is  a  two-fold  rule, 
Scripture  and  Tradition ;  and  this  is  all  that  Catholics 
say.  How,  then,  do  Anglicans  differ  from  Rome  here  ? 
I  believe  the  difference  is  merely  one  of  words ;  and  I 
shall  be  doing,  so  far,  the  work  of  an  Eirenicon,  if  I 
make  clear  what  this  verbal  difference  is.  Catholics 
and  Anglicans  (I  do  not  say  Protestants),  attach  differ¬ 
ent  meanings  to  the  word  ‘  ‘  proof,  ’  ’  in  the  controversy 
as  to  whether  the  whole  faith  is,  or  is  not,  contained  in 
Scripture.  We  mean  that  not  every  article  of  faith  is  so 
contained  there,  that  it  may  thence  be  logically  proved, 
hidependently  of  the  teaching  and  authority  of  the  Tra¬ 
dition  ;  but  Anglicans  mean  that  every  article  of  faith  is 
so  contained  there,  that  it  may  thence  be  proved, 
provided  there  be  added  the  illustrations  and  compensa¬ 
tions  supplied  by  the  Tradition.  And  it  is  in  this  latter 
sense  that  the  Fathers  also  speak  in  the  passages  which 
you  quote  from  them.  I  am  sure  at  least  that  St. 
Athanasius  frequently  adduces  passages  in  proof  of 
points  in  controversy,  which  no  one  would  see  to  be 
proofs,  unless  Apostolical  Tradition  were  taken  into 
account,  first  as  suggesting,  then  as  authoritatively 
ruling  their  meaning.  Thus  you  do  not  say,  that  the 
whole  revelation  is  in  Scripture  in  such  sense  that  pure 
unaided  logic  can  draw  it  from  the  sacred  text ,  nor  do 
we  say,  that  it  is  not  in  Scripture,  in  an  improper  sense, 
in  the  sense  that  the  Tradition  of  the  Church  is  able  to 

*  Oxford  Edition. 


22 


Various  incidental  Statements 


recognize  and  determine  it  there.  You  do  not  profess 
to  dispense  with  Tradition  ;  nor  do  we  forbid  the  idea 
of  probable,  secondary,  symbolical,  connotative  senses 
of  Scripture,  over  and  above  those  which  properly  be¬ 
long  to  the  wording  and  context.  I  hope  you  will 
agree  with  me  in  this. 

3.  Nor  is  it  only  in  isolated  passages  that  you  give 
me  a  place  in  your  volume.  A  considerable  portion  of 
it  is  written  with  a  reference  to  two  publications  of 
mine,  one  of  which  you  name  and  defend,  the  other  you 
implicitly  protest  against :  Tract  90,  and  the  Essay  on 
Doctrinal  Development.  As  to  Tract  90,  you  have 
from  the  first,  as  all  the  world  knows,  boldly  stood  up 
for  it,  in  spite  of  the  obloquy  which  it  brought  upon 
you,  and  have  done  me  a  great  service.  You  are  now 
republishing  it  with  my  cordial  concurrence  ;  but  I  take 
this  opportunity  of  noticing,  lest  there  should  be  any 
mistake  on  the  part  of  the  public,  that  you  do  so  with  a 
different  object  from  that  which  I  had  when  I  wrote  it. 
Its  original  purpose  was  simply  that  of  justifying  my¬ 
self  and  others  in  subscribing  to  the  Thirty-nine 
Articles,  while  professing  many  tenets  which  had  popu¬ 
larly  been  considered  distinctive  of  the  Roman  faith.  I 
considered  that  my  interpretation  of  the  Articles,  as  I 
gave  it  in  that  Tract,  would  stand,  provided  the  parties 
imposing  them  allowed  it ;  otherwise,  I  thought  it  could 
not  stand ;  and,  when  in  the  event  the  bishops  and 
public  opinion  did  not  allow  it,  I  give  up  my  Riving,  as 
having  no  right  to  retain  it.  My  feeling  about  the  in¬ 
terpretation  is  expressed  in  a  passage  in  Loss  and  Gain , 
which  runs  thus  : 

“‘Is  it,’  asked  Reding,  ‘a  received  view?’  ‘No 
view  is  received,’  said  the  other;  ‘the  Articles  them¬ 
selves  are  received,  but  there  is  no  authoritative  inter¬ 
pretation  of  them  at  all.’  ‘  Well,’  said  Reding,  ‘  is  it  a 


in  the  Eirenicon. 


23 


tolerated  view  ?  ’  ‘It  certainly  lias  been  strongly  op¬ 
posed,’  answered  Bateman  ;  ‘  but  it  has  never  been  con¬ 
demned.’  ‘  That  is  no  answer,’  said  Charles.  ‘  Does 
any  one  bishop  hold  it  ?  Did  any  one  bishop  ever  hold 
it?  Has  it  ever  been  formally  admitted  as  tenable  by 
any  one  bishop  ?  Is  it  a  view  got  up  to  meet  existing 
difficulties,  or  has  it  an  historical  existence  ?  ’  Bateman 
could  give  only  one  answer  to  these  questions,  as  they 
were  successively  put  to  him.  ‘I  thought  so,’  said 
Charles  ;  ‘  the  view  is  specious  certainly.  I  don’t  see 
why  it  might  not  have  answered,  had  it  been  tolerably 
sanctioned  ;  but  you  have  no  sanction  to  show  me.  As 
it  stands,  it  is  a  mere  theory  struck  out  by  individuals. 
Our  Church  might  have  adopted  this  mode  of  interpret¬ 
ing  the  Articles;  but,  from  what  you  tell  me,  it 
certainly  has  not  done  so  ’  ”  (ch.  15). 

However,  the  Tract  did  not  carry  its  object  and  con¬ 
ditions  on  its  face,  and  necessarily  lay  open  to  interpre¬ 
tations  very  far  from  the  true  one.  Dr.  Wiseman  (as 
lie  then  was) ,  in  particular,  with  the  keen  apprehension 
which  was  his  characteristic,  at  once  saw  in  it  a  basis 
of  accommodation  between  Anglicanism  and  Rome. 
He  suggested  broadly  that  the  decrees  of  the  Council 
of  Trent  should  be  made  the  rule  of  interpretation 
for  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  a  proceeding  of  which 
Sancta  Clara,  I  think,  had  set  the  example  ;  and  as 
you  have  observed,  published  a  letter  to  L,ord  Shrews¬ 
bury  on  the  subject,  of  which  the  following  are  ex¬ 
tracts  : 

“  We  Catholics  must  necessarily  deplore  [England’s] 
separation  as  a  deep  moral  evil — as  a  state  of  schism, 
of  which  nothing  can  justify  the  continuance.  Many 
members  of  the  Anglican  Church  view  it  in  the  same 
light  as  to  the  first  point — its  sad  evil,  though  they 
excuse  their  individual  position  in  it  as  an  unavoidable 


24 


Various  incidental  Statements 


misfortune.  .  .  .We  may  depend  upon  a  willing, 

an  able,  and  most  zealous  co-operation  with  any  effort 
which  we  may  take,  towards  bringing  her  into  her 
rightful  position,  into  Catholic  unity  with  the  Holy  See 
and  the  Churches  of  its  obedience — in  other  words, 
with  the  Church  Catholic.  Is  this  a  visionary  idea  ? 
Is  it  merely  the  expression  of  a  strong  desire  ?  I 
know  that  many  will  so  judge  it ;  and,  perhaps,  were  I 
to  consult  my  own  quiet,  I  would  not  venture  to  express 
it.  But  I  will,  in  simplicity  of  heart,  cling  to  hopeful¬ 
ness,  cheered,  as  I  feel  it,  by  so  many  promising  ap¬ 
pearances. 

‘  ‘  A  natural  question  here  presents  itself :  what  faci¬ 
lities  appear  in  the  present  state  of  things  for  bringing 
about  so  happy  a  consummation  as  the  reunion  of  Eng¬ 
land  to  the  Catholic  Church,  beyond  what  have  before 
existed,  and  particularly  under  Archbishops  Laud  or 
Wake.  It  strikes  me,  many.  First,  etc.  ...  A 
still  more  promising  circumstance  I  think  your  Lord- 
ship  will  with  me  consider  the  plait  which  the  eventful 
Tract  No.  90  has  pursued,  and  in  which  Mr.  Ward, 
Mr.  Oakeley,  and  even  Dr.  Pusey  have  agreed.  I 
allude  to  the  method  of  bringing  their  doctrines  into  ac¬ 
cordance  with  onrs  by  explanation.  A  foreign  priest  has 
pointed  out  to  us  a  valuable  document  for  our  consider¬ 
ation — ‘  Bossuet’s  Reply  to  the  Pope,’  when  consulted 
on  the  best  method  of  reconciling  the  followers  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession  with  the  Holy  See.  The  learned 
bishop  observes,  that  Providence  had  allowed  so  much 
Catholic  truth  to  be  preserved  in  that  Confession,  that 
full  advantage  should  be  taken  of  the  circumstance  ; 
that  no  retractations  should  be  demanded,  but  an  ex¬ 
planation  of  the  Confession  in  accordance  with  Catholic 
doctrines.  Now,  for  such  a  method  as  this,  the  way  is 
in  part  prepared  by  the  demonstration  that  such  inter- 


in  the  Eirenicon . 


25 


pretation  may  be  given  of  the  most  difficult  Articles  as 
will  strip  them  of  all  contradiction  to  the  decrees  of  the 
Tridentine  Synod.  The  same  method  may  be  pursued 
on  other  points  ;  and  much  pain  may  thus  be  spared  to 
individuals,  and  much  difficulty  to  the  Church”  (pp. 

11,  35,  38). 

This  use  of  my  Tract,  so  different  from  my  own,  but 
sanctioned  by  the  great  name  of  our  cardinal,  you  are 
now  reviving  :  and  I  gather  from  your  doing  so,  that 
your  bishops  and  the  opinion  of  the  public  are  likely 
now,  or  in  prospect,  to  admit  what  twenty-five  years 
ago  they  refused.  On  this  point,  much  as  it  rejoices 
me  to  know  your  anticipation,  of  course  I  cannot  have 
an  opinion. 

4.  So  much  for  Tract  90.  O11  the  other  hand,  as  to 

my  hypothesis  of  Doctrinal  Development,  I  am  sorry  to 
find  you  do  not  look  upon  it  with  friendly  eyes ;  though 
how,  without  its  aid,  you  can  maintain  the  doctrines  of 
the  Holy  Trinity  and  Incarnation,  and  others  which 
you  hold,  I  cannot  understand.  You  consider  my  prin¬ 
ciple  may  be  the  means,  in  time  to  come,  of  introducing 
into  our  Creed,  as  portions  of  the  necessary  Catholic 
faith,  the  Infallibility  of  the  Pope,  and  various  opinions, 
pious  or  profane,  as  it  may  be,  about  our  Blessed  Bady. 
I  hope  to  remove  your  anxiety  as  to  the  character  of 
these  consequences,  before  I  bring  my  observations  to 
an  end  ;  *  at  present  I  notice  it  as  my  apology  for  inter¬ 
fering  in  a  controversy  which  at  first  sight  is  no  busi¬ 
ness  of  mine. 

5.  I  have  another  reason  for  writing;  and  that  is, 
unless  it  is  rude  in  me  to  say  so,  because  you  seem  to 
think  writing  does  not  become  me,  as  being  a  convert. 

*  Father  Ryder  of  the  Oratory  removed  the  necessity  of  my  fulfilling  this 
intention  as  far  as  Infallibility  is  concerned,  by  his  able  pamphlets  in 
answer  to  Mr.  Ward. 


2  6 


Various  incidental  Statements. 


I  do  not  like  silently  to  acquiesce  in  such  a  judgment. 
You  say  at  p.  98  : 

“  Nothing  can  be  more  unpractical  than  for  an  indi¬ 
vidual  to  throw  himself  into  the  Roman  Church,  be¬ 
cause  he  could  accept  the  letter  of  the  Council  of  Trent. 
Those  who  were  born  Roman  Catholics  have  a  liberty, 
which,  in  the  nature  of  things,  a  person  could  not  have 
who  left  another  system  to  embrace  that  of  Rome.  I 
cannot  imagine  how  any  faith  could  stand  the  shock  of 
leaving  one  system,  criticising  z7,  and  cast  himself  into 
another  system,  criticising  it.  For  myself,  I  have 
always  felt  that  had  (which  God  of  His  mercy  avert 
hereafter  also!)  the  English  Church,  by  accepting 
heresy,  driven  me  out  of  it,  I  could  have  gone  in  no 
other  way  than  that  of  closing  my  eyes,  and  accepting 
whatever  was  put  before  me.  But  a  liberty  which  indi¬ 
viduals  could  not  use,  and  explanations,  which  so  long 
as  they  remain  individual  must  be  unauthoritative, 
might  be  formally  made  by  the  Church  of  Rome  to  the 
Church  of  England  as  the  basis  of  reunion.” 

And  again,  p.  210  : 

‘ 1  It  seems  to  me  to  be  a  psychological  impossibility 
for  one  who  has  already  exchanged  one  system  for 
another  to  make  those  distinctions.  One  who,  by  his 
own  act,  places  himself  under  authority,  cannot  make 
conditions  about  his  submission.  But  definite  explana¬ 
tions  of  our  Articles  have,  before  now,  been  at  least 
tentatively  offered  to  us  on  the  Roman  and  Greek  side, 
as  sufficient  to  restore  communion  ;  and  the  Roman  ex¬ 
planations  too  were,  in  most  cases,  mere  supplements  to 
our  Articles,  on  points  upon  which  our  Church  had  not 
spoken.” 

Now,  passages  such  as  these  seem  almost  a  challenge 
to  me  to  speak  ;  and  to  keep  silence  would  be  to  assent 
to  the  justice  of  them.  At  the  cost,  then,  of  speaking 


in  the  Eirenicon. 


27 


about  myself,  of  which  I  feel  there  has  been  too  much 
of  late,  I  observe  upon  them  as  follows:  Of  course,  as 
you  say,  a  convert  comes  to  learn,  and  not  to  pick 
and  choose.  He  comes  in  simplicity  and  confidence, 
and  it  does  not  occur  to  him  to  weigh  and  measure 
every  proceeding,  every  practice  which  he  meets  with 
among  those  whom  he  has  joined.  He  comes  to  Catho¬ 
licism  as  to  a  living  system,  with  a  living  teaching, 
and  not  to  a  mere  collection  of  decrees  and  canons, 
which  by  themselves  are  of  course  but  the  framework, 
not  the  body  and  substance  of  the  Church.  And  this 
is  a  truth  which  concerns,  which  binds,  those  also  who 
never  knew  any  other  religion,  not  only  the  convert. 
By  the  Catholic  system,  I  mean  that  rule  of  life,  and 
those  practices  of  devotion,  for  which  we  shall  look  in 
vain  in  the  Creed  of  Pope  Pius.  The  convert  comes, 
not  only  to  believe  the  Church,  but  also  to  trust  and 
obey  her  priests,  and  to  conform  himself  in  charity  to 
her  people.  It  would  never  do  for  him  to  resolve  that 
he  never  would  say  a  Ilail  Mary,  never  avail  himself 
of  an  indulgence,  never  kiss  a  crucifix,  never  accept  the 
Lent  dispensations,  never  mention  a  venial  sin  in  con¬ 
fession.  All  this  would  not  only  be  unreal,  but  would 
be  dangerous,  too,  as  arguing  a  wrong  state  of  mind, 
which  could  not  look  to  receive  the  divine  blessing. 
Moreover,  he  comes  to  the  ceremonial,  and  the  moral 
theology,  and  the  ecclesiastical  regulations,  which  he 
finds  on  the  spot  where  his  lot  is  cast.  And  again,  as 
regards  matters  of  politics,  of  education,  of  general  ex¬ 
pedience,  of  taste,  he  does  not  criticise  or  controvert. 
And  thus  surrendering  himself  to  the  influences  of  his 
new  religion,  and  not  risking  the  loss  of  revealed  truth 
altogether  by  attempting  by  a  private  rule  to  discrimin¬ 
ate  every  moment  its  substance  from  its  accidents,  he  is 
gradually  so  indoctrinated  in  Catholicism  as  at  length 


28 


Various  incidental  Statements 


to  have  a  right  to  speak  as  well  as  to  hear.  Also  in 
course  of  time  a  new  generation  rises  round  him ;  and 
there  is  no  reason  why  he  should  not  know  as  much, 
and  decide  questions  with  as  true  an  instinct,  as  those 
who  perhaps  number  fewer  years  of  life  than  he  num¬ 
bers  Easter  Communions.  He  has  mastered  the  fact 
and  the  nature  of  the  differences  of  theologian  from 
theologian,  school  from  school,  nation  from  nation,  era 
from  era.  He  knows  that  there  is  much  of  what  may 
be  called  fashion  in  opinions  and  practices,  according  to 
the  circumstances  of  time  and  place,  according  to  cur¬ 
rent  politics,  the  character  of  the  Pope  of  the  day,  or 
the  chief  Prelates  of  a  particular  country  ;  and  that 
fashions  change.  His  experience  tells  him,  that  some¬ 
times  what  is  denounced  in  one  place  as  a  great  offence, 
or  preached  up  as  a  first  principle,  has  in  another 
nation  been  immemorially  regarded  in  just  a  contrary 
sense,  or  has  made  no  sensation  at  all,  one  way  or  the 
other,  when  brought  before  public  opinion  ;  and  that 
loud  talkers  are  apt  to  carry  all  before  them  in  the 
Church,  as  elsewhere,  while  quiet  and  conscientious 
persons  commonly  have  to  give  way.  He  perceives 
that,  in  matters  which  happen  to  be  in  debate,  ecclesias¬ 
tical  authority  watches  the  state  of  opinion  and  the 
direction  and  course  of  controversy,  and  decides  accord¬ 
ingly  ;  so  that  in  certain  cases  to  keep  back  his  own 
judgment  on  a  point,  is  to  be  disloyal  to  his  superiors. 

So  far  generally ;  now  in  particular  as  to  myself. 
After  twenty  years  of  Catholic  life,  I  feel  no  delicacy  in 
giving  my  opinion  on  any  point  when  there  is  a  call  for 
me,  and  the  only  reason  why  I  have  not  done  so  sooner 
or  more  often  than  I  have,  is  that  there  has  been  no 
call.  I  have  now  reluctantly  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  your  volume  is  a  call.  Certainly,  in  many  in¬ 
stances  in  which  theologian  differs  from  theologian  and 


in  the  Eirenicon. 


29 


country  from  country,  I  have  a  definite  judgment  of 
my  own ;  I  can  say  so  without  offence  to  any  one, 
for  the  very  reason  that  from  the  nature  of  the 
case  it  is  impossible  to  agree  with  all  of  them.  I  pre¬ 
fer  English  habits  of  belief  and  devotion  to  foreign, 
from  the  same  causes,  and  by  the  same  right,  which 
justifies  foreigners  in  preferring  their  own.  In  follow¬ 
ing  those  of  my  people,  I  show  less  singularity,  and 
create  less  disturbance  than  if  I  made  a  flourish  with 
what  is  novel  and  exotic.  And  in  this  line  of  conduct 
I  am  but  availing  myself  of  the  teaching  which  I  fell 
in  with  on  becoming  a  Catholic  ;  and  it  is  a  pleasure  4to 
me  to  think  that  what  I  hold  now,  and  would  transmit 
after  me  if  I  could,  is  only  what  I  received  then.  The 
utmost  delicacy  was  observed  on  all  hands  in  giving 
me  advice  :  only  one  warning  remains  on  my  mind, 
and  it  came  from  Dr.  Griffiths,  the  late  Vicar- Apostolic 
of  the  Eondon  district.  He  warned  me  against  books 
of  devotion  of  the  Italian  school,  which  were  just  at 
that  time  coming  into  England ;  and  when  I  asked 
him  what  books  he  recommended  as  safe  guides,  he 
bade  me  get  the  works  of  Bishop  Hay.  By  this  I  did 
not  understand  that  he  was  jealous  of  all  Italian  books, 
or  made  himself  responsible  for  all  that  Dr.  Hay  hap¬ 
pens  to  have  said  ;  but  I  took  him  to  caution  me  against 
a  character  and  tone  of  religion,  excellent  in  its  place, 
not  suited  for  England. 

When  I  went  to  Rome,  though  it  may  seem  strange 
to  you  to  say  it,  even  there  I  learned  nothing  incon¬ 
sistent  with  this  judgment.  Eocal  influences  do  not 
form  the  atmosphere  of  its  institutions  and  colleges, 
which  are  Catholic  in  teaching  as  well  as  in  name.  I 
recollect  one  saying  among  others  of  my  Confessor,  a 
Jesuit  Father,  one  of  the  holiest,  most  prudent  men  I 
ever  knew.  He  said  that  we  could  not  love  the  Blessed 


30 


Various  incidental  Statements 


Virgin  too  much,  if  we  loved  our  Lord  a  great  deal 
more.  When  I  returned  to  England,  the  first  expres¬ 
sion  of  theological  opinion  which  came  in  my  way,  was 
apropos  of  the  series  of  translated  Saints’  Lives  wThich 
the  late  Dr.  Faber  originated.  That  expression  pro¬ 
ceeded  from  a  wise  prelate,  who  was  properly  anxious 
as  to  the  line  which  might  be  taken  by  the  Oxford 
converts,  then  for  the  first  time  coming  into  work. 
According  as  I  recollect  his  opinion,  he  was  apprehen¬ 
sive  of  the  effect  of  Italian  compositions,  as  unsuited  to 
this  country,  and  suggested  that  the  Lives  should  be 
original  works,  drawn  up  by  ourselves  and  our  friends 
from  Italian  sources.  If  at  that  time  I  was  betrayed 
into  any  acts  which  were  of  a  more  extreme  character 
than  I  should  approve  now,  the  responsibility  of  course 
is  my  own ;  but  the  impulse  came,  not  from  old  Catho¬ 
lics  or  superiors,  but  from  men  whom  I  loved  and  trust¬ 
ed,  who  were  younger  than  myself.  But  to  whatever 
extent  I  might  be  carried  away,  and  I  cannot  recollect 
any  tangible  instances,  my  mind  in  no  long  time  fell 
back  to  what  seems  to  me  a  safer  and  more  practical 
course. 

Though  I  am  a  convert,  then,  I  think  I  have  a  right 
to  speak  out ;  and  that  the  more  because  other  converts 
have  spoken  for  a  long  time,  while  I  have  not  spoken ; 
and  with  still  more  reason  may  I  speak  without  offence 
in  the  case  of  your  present  criticisms  of  us,  considering 
that,  in  the  charges  you  bring,  the  only  two  English 
writers  you  quote  in  evidence  are  both  of  them  converts, 
younger  in  age  than  myself.  I  put  aside  the  archbishop 
of  course,  because  of  his  office.  These  two  authors  are 
worthy  of  all  consideration,  at  once  from  their  character 
and  from  their  ability.  In  their  respective  lines  they 
are  perhaps  without  equals  at  this  particular  time  ;  and 


in  the  Eirenicon . 


3i 


they  deserve  the  influence  they  possess.  One  *  is  still 
in  the  vigor  of  his  powers ;  the  othert  has  departed  amid 
the  tears  of  hundreds.  It  is  pleasant  to  praise  them 
for  their  real  excellences  ;  but  why  do  you  rest  on  them 
as  authorities?  You  say  of  the  one  that  he  was  “a 
popular  writer  ’  ’  ;  but  is  there  not  sufficient  reason  for 
this  in  the  fact  of  his  remarkable  gifts,  of  his  poetical 
fancy,  his  engaging  frankness,  his  playful  wit,  his 
affectionateness,  his  sensitive  piety,  without  supposing 
that  the  wide  diffusion  of  his  works  is  caused  by  a 
general  sympathy  with  his  particular  sentiments  about 
the  Blessed  Virgin?  And  as  to  our  other  friend,  do 
not  his  energy,  acuteness,  and  theological  reading,  dis¬ 
played  on  the  vantage  ground  of  the  historic  Dublin 
Review,  fully  account  for  the  sensation  he  has  produced, 
without  supposing  that  any  great  number  of  our  body 
go  his  lengths  in  their  view  of  the  Pope’s  infallibility  ? 
Our  silence  as  regards  their  writings  is  very  intelligible  : 
it  is  not  agreeable  to  protest,  in  the  sight  of  the  world, 
against  the  writings  of  men  in  our  own  Communion 
whom  we  love  and  respect.  But  the  plain  fact  is  this — 
they  came  to  the  Church,  and  have  thereby  saved  their 
souls ;  but  they  are  in  no  sense  spokesmen  for  English 
Catholics,  and  they  must  not  stand  in  the  place  of  those 
who  have  a  real  title  to  such  an  office.  The  chief 
authors  of  the  passing  generation,  some  of  them  still 
alive,  others  gone  to  their  reward,  are  Cardinal  Wise 
man,  Dr.  Ullathorne,  Dr.  Eingard,  Mr.  Tierney,  Dr. 
Oliver,  Dr.  Rock,  Dr.  Waterworth,  Dr.  Husenbeth,  and 
Mr.  Flanagan ;  which  of  these  ecclesiastics  has  said 
anything  extreme  about  the  prerogatives  of  the  Blessed 
Virgin  or  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope  ? 

I  cannot,  then,  without  remonstrance,  allow  you  to 

*Mr.  W.  G.  Ward,  Editor  of  the  Dublin  Review. 

f  Rev.  F.  W.  Faber,  of  the  London  Oratory. 


32 


Various  incidental  Statements 


identify  the  doctrine  of  our  Oxford  friends  in  question, 
on  the  two  subjects  I  have  mentioned,  with  the  present 
spirit  or  the  prospective  creed  of  Catholics ;  or  to 
assume,  as  you  do,  that,  because  they  are  through- 
going  and  relentless  in  their  statements,  therefore  they 
are  the  harbingers  of  a  new  age,  when  to  show  a  defer¬ 
ence  to  Antiquity  will  be  thought  little  else  than  a 
mistake.  For  myself,  hopeless  as  you  consider  it,  I  am 
not  ashamed  still  to  take  my  stand  upon  the  Fathers, 
and  do  not  mean  to  budge.  The  history  of  their  times 
is  not  yet  an  old  almanac  to  me.  Of  course  I  maintain 
the  value  and  authority  of  the  “  Schola,”  as  one  of  the 
loci  theologici ;  nevertheless  I  sympathize  with  Petavius 
in  preferring  to  the  ‘  ‘  contentious  and  subtle  theology  ’  ’ 
of  the  middle  age,  that  “more  elegant  and  fruitful 
teaching  which  is  moulded  after  the  image  of  erudite 
Antiquity.”  The  Fathers  made  me  a  Catholic,  and  I 
am  not  going  to  kick  down  the  ladder  by  which  I 
ascended  into  the  Church.  It  is  a  ladder  quite  as  ser¬ 
viceable  for  that  purpose  now  as  it  was  twenty  years 
ago.  Though  I  hold,  as  you  know,  a  process  of  de¬ 
velopment  in  Apostolic  truth  as  time  goes  on,  such  de¬ 
velopment  does  not  supersede  the  Fathers,  but  explains 
and  completes  them.  And,  in  particular,  as  regards 
our  teaching  concerning  the  Blessed  Virgin,  with  the 
Fathers  I  am  content ;  and  to  the  subject  of  that  teach¬ 
ing  I  mean  to  address  myself  at  once.  I  do  so  because 
you  say,  as  I  myself  have  said  in  former  years,  that 
“That  vast  system  as  to  the  Blessed  Virgin  . 
to  all  of  us  has  been  the  special  crux  of  the  Roman 
system”  (p.  ioi).  Here,  let  me  say,  as  on  other 
points,  the  Fathers  are  enough  for  me.  I  do  not  wish 
to  say  more  than  they  suggest  to  me,  and  will  not  say 
less.  You,  I  know,  will  profess  the  same  ;  and  thus  we 
can  join  issue  on  a  clear  and  broad  principle,  and  may 


in  the  Eirenicon. 


33 


hope  to  come  to  some  intelligible  result.  We  are  to 
have  a  treatise  on  the  subject  of  Our  L,ady  soon  from 
the  pen  of  the  Most  Reverend  Prelate  ;  but  that  cannot 
interfere  with  such  a  mere  argument  from  the  Fathers 
as  that  to  which  I  shall  confine  myself  here.  Nor 
indeed,  as  regards  that  argument  itself,  do  I  profess  to 
be  offering  you  any  new  matter,  any  facts  which  have 
not  been  used  by  others — by  great  divines,  as  Petavius 
— by  living  writers,  nay,  by  myself  on  other  occasions. 
I  write  afresh  nevertheless,  and  that  for  three  reasons ; 
first,  because  I  wish  to  contribute  to  the  accurate  state¬ 
ment  and  the  full  exposition  of  the  argument  in  ques¬ 
tion  ;  next,  because  I  may  gain  a  more  patient  hearing 
than  has  sometimes  been  granted  to  better  men  than 
myself;  lastly,  because  there  just  now  seems  a  call  on 
me,  under  my  circumstances,  to  avow  plainly  what  I  do 
and  what  I  do  not  hold  about  the  Blessed  Virgin,  that 
others  may  know,  did  they  come  to  stand  where  I 
stand,  what  they  would,  and  what  they  would  not,  be 
bound  to  hold  concerning  her. 


CHAPTER  III. 


4 

4 


BELIEF,  AS  DISTINCT  FROM  DEVOTION. 


Devotion  to  Mary  has  increased  in  the  Course  of 
Ages,  but  the  Doctrine  has  been  the  same  from 
the  Beginning. — Faith  and  Devotion  compared. — 
Liberty  of  Devotion  among  Catholics. — Diversi¬ 
fied  Devotions  the  Accumulation  of  Centuries. —  . 
Evidences  from  Sacred  History. 

I  BEGIN  by  making  a  distinction  which  will  go  far  to 
remove  good  part  of  the  difficulty  of  my  undertak¬ 
ing,  as  it  presents  itself  to  ordinary  inquirers — the  dis¬ 
tinction  between  faith  and  devotion.  I  fully  grant  that 
devotion  towards  the  Blessed  Virgin  has  increased 
among  Catholics  with  the  progress  of  centuries ;  I  do 
not  allow  that  the  doctrine  concerning  her  has  under¬ 
gone  a  growth,  for  I  believe  that  it  has  been  in  sub¬ 
stance  one  and  the  same  from  the  beginning. 

By  ‘  ‘  faith  ’  ’  I  mean  the  Creed  and  assent  to  the 
Creed ;  by  “  devotion  ’  ’  I  mean  such  religious  honors 
as  belong  to  the  objects  of  our  faith,  and  the  payment 
of  those  honors.  Faith  and  devotion  are  as  distinct  in 
fact  as  they  are  in  idea.  We  cannot,  indeed,  be 
devout  without  faith,  but  we  may  believe  without  feel¬ 
ing  devotion.  Of  this  phenomenon  every  one  has  ex¬ 
perience  both  in  himself  and  in  others  ;  and  we  bear 
witness  to  it  as  often  as  we  speak  of  realizing  a  truth  or 
not  realizing  it.  It  may  be  illustrated,  with  more  or 

34 


Belief  \  as  distinct  from  Devotion . 


35 


less  exactness,  by  matters  which  come  before  us  in  the 
world.  For  instance,  a  great  author,  or  public  man, 
may  be  acknowledged  as  such  for  a  course  of  years ;  yet 
there  may  be  an  increase,  an  ebb  and  flow,  and  a 
fashion,  in  his  popularity.  And  if  he  takes  a  lasting 
place  in  the  minds  of  his  countrymen,  he  may  gradually 
grow  into  it,  or  suddenly  be  raised  to  it.  The  idea  of 
Shakespeare  as  a  great  poet  has  existed  from  a  very 
early  date  in  public  opinion ;  and  there  were  at  least 
individuals  then  who  understood  him  as  well,  and 
honored  him  as  much,  as  the  English  people  can  honor 
him  now ;  yet,  I  think,  there  is  a  national  devotion  to 
him  in  this  day  such  as  never  has  been  before.  This 
has  happened  because,  as  education  spreads  in  the 
country,  there  are  more  men  able  to  enter  into  his  poeti¬ 
cal  genius,  and,  among  these,  more  capacity  again  for 
deeply  and  critically  understanding  him ;  and  yet,  from 
the  first,  he  has  exerted  a  great  insensible  influence 
over  the  nation,  as  is  seen  in  the  circumstance  that  his 
phrases  and  sentences,  more  than  can  be  numbered, 
have  become  almost  proverbs  among  us.  And  so  again 
in  philosophy,  and  in  the  arts  and  sciences,  great  truths 
and  principles  have  sometimes  been  known  and  ac¬ 
knowledged  for  a  course  of  years ;  but,  whether  from 
feebleness  of  intellectual  power  in  the  recipients,  or  ex¬ 
ternal  circumstances  of  an  accidental  kind,  they  have 
not  been  turned  to  account.  Thus  the  Chinese  are  said 
to  have  known  of  the  properties  of  the  magnet  from 
time  immemorial,  and  to  have  used  it  for  land  expedi¬ 
tions,  yet  not  on  the  sea.  Again,  the  ancients  knew  of 
the  principle  that  water  finds  its  own  level,  but  seem  to 
have  made  little  application  of  their  knowledge.  And 
Aristotle  was  familiar  with  the  principle  of  induc¬ 
tion  ;  yet  it  was  left  for  Bacon  to  develop  it  into  an  ex¬ 
perimental  philosophy.  Illustrations  such  as  these, 


36 


Belief,  as  distinct  from  Devotion . 


though  not  altogether  apposite,  serve  to  convey  that  dis¬ 
tinction  between  faith  and  devotion  on  which  I  am  in¬ 
sisting.  It  is  like  the  distinction  between  objective 
and  subjective  truth.  The  sun  in  the  spring-time  will 
have  to  shine  many  days  before  he  is  able  to  melt  the 
frost,  open  the  soil,  and  bring  out  the  leaves ;  yet  he 
shines  out  from  the  first  notwithstanding,  though  he 
makes  his  power  felt  but  gradually.  It  is  one  and  the 
same  sun,  though  his  influence  day  by  day  becomes 
greater ;  and  so  in  the  Catholic  Church  it  is  the  one 
Virgin  Mother,  one  and  the  same  from  first  to  last,  and 
Catholics  may  have  ever  acknowledged  her ;  and  yet,  in 
spite  of  that  acknowledgment,  their  devotion  to  her 
may  be  scanty  in  one  time  and  place,  and  overflowing 
in  another. 

This  distinction  is  forcibly  brought  home  to  a  con¬ 
vert,  as  a  peculiarity  of  the  Catholic  religion,  on  his 
first  introduction  to  its  worship.  The  faith  is  every¬ 
where  one  and  the  same,  but  a  large  liberty  is  accorded 
to  private  judgment  and  inclination  as  regards  matters 
of  devotion.  Any  large  church,  with  its  collections  and 
groups  of  people,  will  illustrate  this.  The  fabric  itself 
is  dedicated  to  Almighty  God,  and  that  under  the  invo¬ 
cation  of  the  Blessed  Virgin,  or  some  particular  saint; 
or  again,  of  some  mystery  belonging  to  the  Divine 
Name  or  the  Incarnation,  or  of  some  mystery  associated 
with  the  Blessed  Virgin.  Perhaps  there  are  seven 
altars  or  more  in  it,  and  these  again  have  their  several 
saints.  Then  there  is  the  feast  proper  to  this  or  that 
day  ;  and  during  the  celebration  of  Mass,  of  all  the 
worshippers  who  crowd  around  the  priest,  each  has  his 
own  particular  devotions,  with  which  he  follows  the 
rite.  No  one  interferes  with  his  neighbor;  agreeing, 
as  it  were,  to  differ,  they  pursue  independently  a 
common  end,  and  by  paths  distinct  but  converging 


Belief  \  as  distinct  from  Devotion. 


37 


present  themselves  before  God.  Then  there  are  con¬ 
fraternities  attached  to  the  church — of  the  Sacred 
Heart,  or  of  the  Precious  Blood  ;  associations  of  prayer 
for  a  good  death,  or  for  the  repose  of  departed  souls,  or 
for  the  conversion  of  the  heathen  ;  devotions  connected 
with  the  brown,  blue,  or  red  scapular;  not  to  .speak  of 
the  great  ordinary  Ritual  observed  through  the  four 
seasons,  or  of  the  constant  Presence  of  the  Blessed 
Sacrament,  or  of  its  ever- recurring  rite  of  Benediction, 
and  its  extraordinary  Forty  Hours’  Exposition.  Or, 
again,  look  through  such  manuals  of  prayers  as  the 
Raccolta ,  and  you  at  once  will  see  both  the  number  and 
the  variety  of  devotions  which  are  open  to  individual 
Catholics  to  choose  from,  according  to  their  religious 
taste  and  prospect  of  personal  edification. 

Now  these  diversified  modes  of  honoring  God  did  not 
come  to  us  in  a  day,  or  only  from  the  apostles ;  they  are 
the  accumulations  of  centuries ;  and  as  in  the  course 
of  years  some  of  them  spring  up,  so  others  decline  and 
die.  Some  are  local,  in  memory  of  some  particular 
saint,  who  happens  to  be  the  evangelist,  or  patron,  or 
pride  of  the  nation,  or  who  lies  entombed  in  the  church 
or  in  the  city  where  it  is  found  ;  and  these  devotions, 
necessarily,  cannot  have  an  earlier  date  than  the  saint’s 
day  of  death  or  interment  there.  The  first  of  these 
sacred  observances,  long  before  such  national  memories, 
were  the  devotions  paid  to  the  apostles,  then  those 
which  were  paid  to  the  martyrs ;  yet  there  were  saints 
nearer  to  our  Eord  than  either  martyrs  or  apostles ; 
but,  as  if  these  sacred  persons  were  immersed  and  lost 
in  the  effulgence  of  His  glory,  and  because  they  did  not 
manifest  themselves,  when  in  the  body,  in  external 
works  separate  from  Him,  it  happened  that  for  a  long 
while  they  were  less  dwelt  upon.  However,  in  process 
of  time  the  apostles,  and  then  the  martyrs,  exerted  loss 


38 


Belief,  as  distinct  from  Devotion. 


influence  than  before  over  the  popular  mind,  and  the 
local  saints,  new  creations  of  God’s  power,  took  their 
place,  or  again,  the  saints  of  some  religious  order  here 
or  there  established.  Then,  as  comparatively  quiet 
times  succeeded,  the  religious  meditations  of  holy  men 
and  their  secret  intercourse  with  heaven  gradually  ex¬ 
erted  an  influence  out  of  doors,  and  permeated  the 
Christian  populace,  by  the  instrumentality  of  preaching 
and  by  the  ceremonial  of  the  Church.  Hence  at  length 
those  luminous  stars  rose  in  the  ecclesiastical  heavens, 
which  were  of  more  august  dignity  than  any  which  had 
preceded  them,  and  were  late  in  rising,  for  the  very 
reason  that  they  were  so  specially  glorious.  Those 
names,  I  say,  which  at  first  sight  might  have  been  ex¬ 
pected  to  enter  soon  into  the  devotions  of  the  faithful, 
with  better  reason  might  have  been  looked  for  at  a 
later  date,  and  actually  were  late  in  their  coming.  St. 
Joseph  furnishes  the  most  striking  instance  of  this  re¬ 
mark  ;  here  is  the  clearest  of  instances  of  the  distinc¬ 
tion  between  doctrine  and  devotion.  Who,  from  his 
prerogatives  and  the  testimony  on  which  they  come  to 
us,  had  a  greater  claim  to  receive  an  early  recognition 
among  the  faithful  than  he?  A  saint  of  Scripture,  the 
foster-father  of  our  Cord,  he  was  an  object  of  the  uni¬ 
versal  and  absolute  faith  of  the  Christian  world  from  the 
first,  yet  the  devotion  to  him  is  comparatively  of  late 
date.  When  once  it  began,  men  seemed  surprised  that 
it  had  not  been  thought  of  before ;  and  now,  they  hold 
him  next  to  the  Blessed  Virgin  in  their  religious 
affection  and  veneration. 

As  regards  the  Blessed  Virgin,  then,  I  shall  postpone 
the  question  of  devotion  for  a  while,  and  inquire  first 
into  the  doctrine  of  the  undivided  Church — to  use  your 
controversial  phrase — on  the  subject  of  her  preroga¬ 
tives. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


MARY  THE  SECOND  EVE  IN  THE  EAREY 

CHURCH. 


This  was  the  rudimental  Teaching  of  Christian  An¬ 
tiquity. — The  Ancient  Fathers  made  a  Parallel¬ 
ism  between  Eve  in  the  Fall  and  Mary  in  the  Re¬ 
demption. — Testimony  of  St.  Justin  Martyr  re¬ 
presenting  the  early  Belief  of  Palestine. — 
Tertullian,  who  speaks  for  Africa  and  Rome. — 
St.  Iren^eus,  representing  Asia  Minor  and  Gaul,  as 
well  as  St.  John  the  Evangelist,  who  taught  his 
Master,  St.  Polycarp. — These  Fathers  teach  that 
Mary  was  not  a  mere  Instrument  of  the  Incarna¬ 
tion,  BUT  FREELY  AND  MFRITORIOUSLY  CO-OPERATED. — 

The  Worth  of  the  concurrent  Testimony  of 

THESE  EARLIEST  OF  THE  FATHERS. — TESTIMONY  OF  THE 

Fathers  of  the  succeeding  Era:  St.  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem,  St.  Ephrem,  St.  Epiphanius,  St.  Jerome, 
St.  Peter  Chrysologus,  St.  Fulgentius. 

WHAT  is  the  great  rudimental  teaching  of  antiquity 
from  its  earliest  date  concerning  her  ?  By 
“rudimental  teaching  ’  ’  I  mean  the  prima  facie  view  of 
her  person  and  office,  the  broad  outline  laid  down  of 
her,  the  aspect  under  \vhich  she  comes  to  us,  in  the 
writings  of  the  Fathers.  She  is  the  second  Eve.* 
Now  let  us  consider  what  this  implies.  Eve  had  a 
definite,  essential  position  in  the  First  Covenant.  The 

*  Vide  Essay  on  Development  of  Doctrine ,  1845,  p.  384,  etc. 


39 


40 


Belief  of  Catholics 


fate  of  the  human  race  lay  with  Adam  ;  he  it  was  who 
represented  us.  It  was  in  Adam  that  we  fell ;  though 
Eve  had  fallen,  still,  if  Adam  had  stood,  we  should 
not  have  lost  those  supernatural  privileges  which  were 
bestowed  upon  him  as  our  first  father.  Yet  though 
Eve  was  not  the  head  of  the  race,  still,  even  as  regards 
the  race,  she  had  a  place  of  her  own  ;  for  Adam,  to 
whom  was  divinely  committed  the  naming  of  all  things, 
named  her  “the  Mother  of  all  the  living,”  a  name 
surely  expressive,  not  of  a  fact  only,  but  of  a  dignity; 
but  further,  as  she  thus  had  her  own  general  relation 
to  the  human  race,  so  again  had  she  her  own  special 
place,  as  regards  its  trial  and  its  fall  in  Adam.  In 
those  primeval  events  Eve  had  an  integral  share. 
“  The  woman,  being  seduced,  was  in  the  transgres¬ 
sion.”  She  listened  to  the  Evil  Angel ;  she  offered  the 
fruit  to  her  husband,  and  he  ate  of  it.  She  co-operated, 
not  as  an  irresponsible  instrument,  but  intimately  and 
personally  in  the  sin  :  she  brought  it  about.  As  the 
history  stands,  she  was  a  sine  qua  non ,  a  positive, 
active  cause  of  it.  And  she  had  her  share  in  its 
punishment;  in  the  sentence  pronounced  on  her  she 
was  recognized  as  a  real  agent  in  the  temptation  and 
its  issue,  and  she  suffered  accordingly.  In  that  awful 
transaction  there  were  three  parties  concerned — the 
serpent,  the  woman,  and  the  man  ;  and  at  the  time  of 
their  sentence,  an  event  was  announced  for  a  distant 
future,  in  which  the  three  same  parties  were  to  meet 
again,  the  serpent,  the  woman,  and  the  man;  but  it  was 
to  be  a  second  Adam  and  a  second  Eve,  and  the  new 
Eve  was  to  be  the  mother  of  the  new  Adam.  “  I  will 
put  enmity  between  thee  and  the  woman,  and  between 
thy  seed  and  her  seed.”  The  Seed  of  the  woman  is 
the  Word  Incarnate,  and  the  Woman,  whose  seed  or 
son  He  is,  is  His  mother  Mary.  This  interpretation, 


that  She  is  the  Second  Eve. 


41 


and  the  parallelism  it  involves,  seem  to  me  unde¬ 
niable  ;  but  at  all  events — and  this  is  my  point — the 
parallelism  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Fathers,  from  the 
earliest  times  :  and,  this  being  established,  we  are  able, 
by  the  position  and  office  of  Eve  in  our  fall,  to  de¬ 
termine  the  position  and  office  of  Mary  in  our  restora¬ 
tion. 

I  shall  adduce  passages  from  their  writings,  noting 
their  respective  countries  and  dates ;  and  the  dates 
shall  extend  from  their  births  or  conversions  to  their 
deaths,  since  what  they  propound  is  at  once  the  doc¬ 
trine  which  they  had  received  from  the  generation 
before  them,  and  the  doctrine  which  was  accepted  and 
recognized  as  true  by  the  generation  to  whom  they 
transmitted  it. 

First,  then,  St.  Justin  Martyr,  a.d.  120-165 ;  St. 
Irenaeus,  120-200,  and  Tertullian,  160-240.  Of  these 
Tertullian  represents  Africa  and  Rome;  St.  Justin 
represents  Palestine ;  and  St.  Irenaeus,  Asia  Minor 
and  Gaul;  or  rather  he  represents  St.  John  the 
Evangelist,  for  he  had  been  taught  by  the  martyr  St. 
Polvcarp,  who  was  the  intimate  associate  of  St.  John,  as 
also  of  other  Apostles. 

1.  St.  Justin  : 

“  We  know  that  He,  before  all  creatures,  proceeded 
from  the  Father  by  His  power  and  will,  .  .  .  and 

by  means  of  the  Virgin  became  man,  that  by  what  way 
the  disobedience  arising  from  the  serpent  had  its  begin¬ 
ning,  by  that  way  also  it  might  have  an  undoing.  For 
Eve,  being  a  virgin  and  undefiled,  conceiving  the  word 
that  was  from  the  serpent,  brought  forth  disobedience 
and  death  ;  but  the  Virgin  Mary,  taking  faith  and  joy, 
when  the  angel  told  her  the  good  tidings,  that  the 
Spirit  of  the  Eord  shall  come  upon  her  and  the  power 


42 


Belief  of  Catholics 


of  the  Highest  overshadow  her,  and  therefore  the  Holy 
One  that  was  born  of  her  was  Son  of  God,  answered, 
‘  Be  it  to  me  according  to  thy  word  ’  ”  (Try//?.,  ioo) . 

2.  Tertullian  : 

‘  ‘  God  recovered  His  image  and  likeness,  which  the 
devil  had  seized,  by  a  rival  operation.  For  into  Kve,  as 
yet  a  virgin,  had  crept  the  word  which  was  the  framer 
of  death.  Equally  into  a  virgin  was  to  be  introduced 
the  Word  of  God  which  was  the  builder  up  of  life  ; 
that,  what  by  that  sex  had  gone  into  perdition  by  the 
same  sex  might  be  brought  back  to  salvation.  Eve 
had  believed  the  serpent ;  Mary  believed  Gabriel;  the 
fault  which  the  one  committed  by  believing,  the  other 
by  believing  has  blotted  out  ”  ( De  Cam.  Christ .,  17). 

3.  St.  Irenseus : 

“  With  a  fitness,  Mary  the  Virgin  is  found  obedient, 
saying,  ‘  Behold  Thy  handmaid,  O  Lord  ;  be  it  to  me 
according  to  thy  word.’  But  Eve  was  disobedient;  for 
she  obeyed  not,  while  she  was  yet  a  virgin.  As  she, 
having  indeed  Adam  for  a  husband,  but  as  yet  being  a 
virgin,  .  .  .  becoming  disobedient,  became  the 

cause  of  death  both  to  herself  and  to  the  whole  human 
race,  so  also  Mary,  having  the  predestined  man,  and 
being  yet  a  Virgin,  being  obedient,  became  both  to  her¬ 
self  and  to  the  whole  human  race  the  cause  of  salvation. 

And  011  account  of  this  the  Eord  said,  that  the 
first  should  be  last  and  the  last  first.  And  the  Prophet 
signifies  the  same,  saying,  ‘  Instead  of  fathers  you  have 
children.’  For,  whereas  the  Eord,  when  born,  was  the 
first-begotten  of  the  dead,  and  received  into  His  bosom 
the  primitive  fathers,  He  regenerated  them  into  the 
life  of  God,  He  Himself  becoming  the  beginning  of  the 
living,  since  Adam  became  the  beginning  of  the  dying. 
Therefore  also  Euke,  commencing  the  line  of  genera¬ 
tions  from  the  Eord,  referred  it  back  to  Adam,  signify- 


that  She  is  the  Second  Eve. 


43 


ing  that  He  regenerated  the  old  fathers,  not  they  Him, 
into  the  Gospel  of  life.  And  so  the  knot  of  Eve’s  dis¬ 
obedience  received  its  unloosing  through  the  obedience 
of  Mary  ;  for  what  Eve,  a  virgin,  bound  by  incredulity, 
that  Mary,  a  virgin,  unloosed  by  faith  ”  ( Adv .  Hcer .,  iii. 
22,34). 

And  again : 

“  As  Eve  by  the  speech  of  an  angel  was  seduced,  so 
as  to  flee  God,  transgressing  His  word,  so  also  Mary 
received  the  good  tidings  by  means  of  the  angel’s 
speech,  so  as  to  bear  God  within  her,  being  obedient  to 
His  word.  And,  though  the  one  had  disobeyed  God, 
yet  the  other  was  drawn  to  obey  God ;  that  of  the 
virgin  Eve  the  Virgin  Mary  might  become  the  advo¬ 
cate.  And,  as  by  a  virgin  the  human  race  had  been 
bound  to  death,  by  a  virgin  it  is  saved,*  the  balance 
being  preserved,  a  virgin’s  disobedience  by  a  virgin’s 
obedience”  ( Ibid.,v .  19). 

Now,  what  is  especially  noticeable  in  these  three 
writers  is,  that  they  do  not  speak  of  the  Blessed  Virgin 
merely  as  the  physical  instrument  of  our  Eord’s  taking 
flesh,  but  as  an  intelligent,  responsible  cause  of  it ;  her 
faith  and  obedience  being  accessories  to  the  Incarna¬ 
tion,  and  gaining  it  as  her  reward.  As  Eve  failed  in 
these  virtues,  and  thereby  brought  on  the  fall  of  the 
race  in  Adam,  so  Mary  by  means  of  the  same  had  a 
part  in  its  restoration.  You  surely  imply — pp.  151- 
1 56 — that  the  Blessed  Virgin  wTas  only  a  physical  in¬ 
strument  of  our  redemption ;  ‘  ‘  what  has  been  said  of 
her  by  the  fathers  as  the  chosen  vessel  of  the  Incarna¬ 
tion,  was  applied  personally  to  her” — that  is,  by 

*  Salvatur  ;  some  MSS.  read  Solvatur,  “  [that]  it  might  be  loosed  ”  ;  and 
so  Augustine  contr.  Jul.  i.  n.  5.  This  variety  of  reading  does  not  affect  the 
general  sense  of  the  passage.  Moreover,  the  word  “salvation”  occurs  in 
the  former  of  these  two  passages. 


44  Belief  of  Catholics 

Catholics — (p.  15 1),  and  again  ‘‘the  Fathers  speak  of 
the  Blessed  Virgin  as  the  instncment  of  our  salvation, 
in  that  she  gave  birth  to  the  Redeemer  (pp.  155,  156)  ; 
whereas  St.  Augustine,  in  well-known  passages,  speaks 
of  her  as  more  exalted  by  her  sanctity  than  by  her 
relationship  to  our  Ford.*  However,  not  to  go  beyond 
the  doctrine  of  the  Three  Fathers,  they  unanimously 
declare  that  she  was  not  a  mere  instrument  in  the  Incar¬ 
nation,  such  as  David,  or  Judah,  may  be  considered; 
they  declare  she  co-operated  in  our  salvation  not  merely 
by  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon  her  body,  but 
by  specific  holy  acts,  the  effect  of  the  Holy  Ghost  with¬ 
in  her  soul ;  that  as  Eve  forfeited  privileges  by  sin,  so 
Mary  earned  privileges  by  the  fruits  of  grace ;  that,  as 
Eve  was  disobedient  and  unbelieving,  so  Mary  was 
obedient  and  believing  ;  that,  as  Eve  was  a  cause  of 
ruin  to  all,  Mary  was  a  cause  of  salvation  to  all;  that 
as  Eve  made  room  for  Adam’s  fall,  so  Mary  made  room 
for  our  Lord’s  reparation  of  it;  and  thus,  whereas  the 
free  gift  was  not  as  the  offence,  but  much  greater,  it 
follows  that,  as  Eve  co-operated  in  effecting  a  great 
evil,  Mary  co-operated  in  effecting  a  much  greater 
good. 

And,  besides  the  run  of  the  argument,  which  reminds 
the  reader  of  St.  Paul’s  antithetical  sentences  in  tracing 
the  analogy  between  Adam’s  work  and  our  Lord’s 
work,  it  is  well  to  observe  the  particular  words  under 
which  the  Blessed  Virgin’s  office  is  described. 
Tertullian  says  that  Mary  “blotted  out”  Eve’s  fault, 
and  “brought  back  the  female  sex,”  or  “the  human 
race,  to  salvation”  ;  and  St.  Irenaeus  says  that  “by 
obedience  she  was  the  cause  or  occasion”  (whatever 
was  the  original  Greek  word)  “of  salvation  to  herself 
and  the  whole  human  race  ’  ’  ;  that  by  her  the  human 
*Opp,  t,  3,  p.  2,  col.  369;  t.  6,  col,  312, 


that  She  is  the  Second  Eve . 


45 


race  is  saved  ;  that  by  her  Eve’s  complication  is  dis¬ 
entangled  ;  and  that  she  is  Eve’s  Advocate,  or  friend  in 
need.  It  is  supposed  by  critics,  Protestant  as  well  as 
Catholic,  that  the  Greek  word  for  Advocate  in  the 
original  was  Paraclete  ;  it  should  be  borne  in  mind, 
then,  when  we  are  accused  of  giving  our  Eady  the 
titles  and  offices  of  her  Son,  that  St.  Irenaeus  bestows 
on  her  the  special  Name  and  Office  proper  to  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

So  much  as  to  the  nature  of  this  triple  testimony  ; 
now  as  to  the  worth  of  it.  For  a  moment  put  aside  St. 
Irenaeus,  and  put  together  St.  Justin  in  the  East  with 
Tertullian  in  the  West.  I  think  I  may  assume  that  the 
doctrine  of  these  two  Fathers  about  the  Blessed  Virgin 
was  the  received  doctrine  of  their  own  respective  times 
and  places ;  for  writers  after  all  are  but  witnesses  of 
facts  and  beliefs,  and  as  such  they  are  treated  by  all 
parties  in  controversial  discussion.  Moreover,  the  coin¬ 
cidence  of  doctrine  which  they  exhibit,  and  again,  the 
antithetical  completeness  of  it,  show  that  they  them¬ 
selves  did  not  originate  it.  The  next  question  is,  Who 
did?  For  from  one  definite  organ  or  source,  place  or 
person,  it  must  have  come.  Then  we  must  inquire, 
what  length  of  time  would  it  take  for  such  a  doctrine  to 
have  extended,  and  to  be  received,  in  the  second 
century,  over  so  wide  an  area  ? — that  is,  to  be  received 
before  the  year  200  in  Palestine,  Africa,  and  Rome. 
Can  we  refer  the  common  source  of  these  local  tradi¬ 
tions  to  a  date  much  later  than  that  of  the  Apostles, 
since  St.  John  died  within  twenty  years  of  St.  Justiffis 
conversion  and  sixty  of  Tertullian’s  birth  ?  Make  what 
allowance  you  will  for  whatever  possible  exceptions  can 
be  taken  to  this  representation  ;  and  then,  after  doing 
so,  add  to  the  concordant  testimony  of  these  two 
Fathers  the  evidence  of  St.  Irenaeus,  which  is  so  close 


46 


Belief  of  Catholics 


upon  that  of  the  school  of  St.  John  himself  in  Asia 
Minor.  “  A  three-fold  cord,”  as  the  wise  man  says, 
“  is  not  quickly  broken.”  Only  suppose  there  were  so 
early  and  so  broad  a  testimony  to  the  effect  that  our 
Lord  was  a  mere  man,  the  son  of  Joseph  ;  should  we  be 
able  to  insist  upon  the  faith  of  the  Holy  Trinity  as 
necessary  to  salvation?  Or  supposing  three  such 
witnesses  could  be  brought  to  the  fact  that  a  consistory 
of  elders  governed  the  local  churches,  or  that  each  local 
congregation  was  an  independent  Church,  or  that  the 
Christian  community  was  without  priests,  could  Angli¬ 
cans  maintain  their  doctrine  that  the  rule  of  episcopal 
succession  is  necessary  to  constitute  a  Church  ?  And 
then  recollect  that  the  Anglican  Church  especially 
appeals  to  the  ante-Nicene  centuries,  and  taunts  us 
with  having  superseded  their  testimony. 

Having  then  adduced  these  Three  Fathers  of  the 
second  century,  I  have  at  least  got  so  far  as  this  :  viz., 
that  no  one,  who  acknowledges  the  force  of  early  testi¬ 
mony  in  determining  Christian  truth,  can  wonder,  no 
one  can  complain,  can  object,  that  we  Catholics  should 
hold  a  very  high  doctrine  concerning  the  Blessed 
Virgin,  unless  indeed  stronger  statements  can  be 
brought  for  a  contrary  conception  of  her,  either  of  as 
early,  or  at  least  of  a  later  date.  But,  as  far  as  I  know, 
no  statements  can  be  brought  from  the  ante-Nicene 
literature  to  invalidate  the  testimony  of  the  Three 
Fathers  concerning  her ;  and  little  can  be  brought 
against  it  from  the  fourth  century,  while  in  that  fourth 
century  the  current  of  testimony  in  her  behalf  is  as 
strong  as  in  the  second  ;  and  as  to  the  fifth,  it  is  far 
stronger  than  in  any  former  time,  both  in  its  fulness  and 
its  authority.  That  such  is  the  concordant  verdict  of 
‘  ‘  the  undivided  Church  ’ 5  will  to  some  extent  be  seen 
as  I  proceed. 


j 


that  She  is  the  Second  Eve. 


47 


4.  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  (315-386)  speaks  for 
Palestine  : 

“Since  through  Kve,  a  virgin,  came  death,  it  be¬ 
hooved  that  through  a  virgin,  or  rather  from  a  virgin, 
should  life  appear ;  that,  as  the  serpent  had  deceived 
the  one,  so  to  the  other  Gabriel  might  bring  good 
things”  ( Cat . ,  xii.  15). 

5.  St.  Ephrem  Syrus  (he  died  378)  is  a  witness  for 
the  Syrians  proper  and  the  neighboring  Orientals,  in 
contrast  to  the  Graeco-Syrians.  A  native  of  Nisibis  on 
the  farther  side  of  the  Euphrates,  he  knew  no  language 
but  Syriac. 

“Through  Eve,  the  beautiful  and  desirable  glory  of 
men  was  extinguished ;  but  it  has  revived  through 
Mary”  ( Opp .  Syr.,  ii,  p.  318). 

Again  : 

“  In  the  beginning,  by  the  sin  of  our  first  parents, 
death  passed  upon  all  men  ;  to-day,  through  Mary  we 
are  translated  from  death  unto  life.  In  the  beginning, 
the  serpent  filled  the  ears  of  Eve,  and  the  poison  spread 
thence  over  the  whole  body ;  to-day,  Mary  from  her 
ears  received  the  champion  of  eternal  happiness  :  what, 
therefore,  was  an  instrument  of  death,  was  an  instru- 
ment  of  life  also  ”  (iii.  p.  607). 

I  have  already  referred  to  St.  Paul’s  contrast  between 
Adam  and  our  Eord  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  as 
also  in  his  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  Some 
writers  venture  to  say  that  there  is  no  doctrinal  truth, 
but  a  mere  rhetorical  display,  in  those  passages.  It  is 
quite  as  easy  to  say  so,  as  to  attempt  so  to  dispose  of 
this  received  comparison,  in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers, 
between  Eve  and  Mary. 

6.  St.  Epiphanius  (320-400)  speaks  for  Egypt, 
Palestine,  and  Cyprus  : 

“She  it  is  who  is  signified  by  Eve,  enigmatically 


48 


Belief  of  Catholics 


receiving  the  appellation  of  the  Mother  of  the  living. 

It  was  a  wonder  that  after  the  transgression 
she  had  this  great  epithet.  And,  according  to  what  is 
material,  from  that  Eve  all  the  race  of  men  on  earth  is 
generated.  But  thus  in  truth  from  Mary  the  life  itself 
was  born  in  the  world,  that  Mary  might  bear  living 
things,  and  become  the  mother  of  living  things. 
Therefore,  enigmatically,  Mary  is  called  the  Mother  of 
living  things.  .  .  .  Also,  there  is  another  thing  to 

consider  as  to  these  women,  and  wonderful,  as  to  Eve 
and  Mary.  Eve  became  a  cause  of  death  to  man, 
.  and  Mary  a  cause  of  life ;  .  .  .  that  life 

might  be  instead  of  death,  life  excluding  death  which 
came  from  the  woman,  viz.,  He  who  through  the 
woman  has  become  our  life  ”  (- Hcer .,  78,  18) . 

7.  By  the  time  of  St.  Jerome  (331-420)  the  con¬ 
trast  between  Eve  and  Mary  had  almost  passed  into  a 
proverb.  He  says  (Bp.  xxii.  21,  ad  Eustoch.),  “  Death 
by  Eve,  life  by  Mary.”  Nor  let  it  be  supposed  that  he, 
any  more  than  the  preceding  Fathers,  considered  the 
Blessed  Virgin  a  mere  physical  instrument  of  giving 
birth  to  our  Eord,  who  is  the  Life.  So  far  from  it,  in 
the  Epistle  from  which  I  have  quoted,  he  is  only  adding 
another  virtue  to  that  crown  which  gained  for  Mary  her 
divine  Maternity.  They  have  spoken  of  faith,  joy,  and 
obedience  ;  St.  Jerome  adds,  what  they  had  only  sug¬ 
gested,  virginity.  After  the  manner  of  the  Fathers  in 
his  own  day,  he  is  setting  forth  the  Blessed  Mary  to  the 
high-born  Roman  Lady,  whom  he  is  addressing,  as  the 
model  of  the  virginal  life ;  and  his  argument  in  its  be¬ 
half  is,  that  it  is  higher  than  the  marriage-state,  not  in 
itself,  viewed  in  any  mere  natural  respect,  but  as  being 
the  free  act  of  self-consecration  to  God,  and  from  the 
personal  religious  purpose  which  it  involves. 

“Higher  wage,”  he  says,  “is  due  to  that  which  is 


that  She  is  the  Second  Eve. 


49 


not  a  compulsion,  but  an  offering  ;  for,  were  virginity 
commanded,  marriage  would  seem  to  be  put  out  of  the 
question  ;  and  it  would  be  most  cruel  to  force  men 
against  nature,  and  to  extort  from  them  an  angel’s 
life”  (26). 

I  do  not  know  whose  testimony  is  more  important 
than  St.  Jerome’s,  the  friend  of  Pope  Damasus  at 
Rome,  the  pupil  of  St.  Gregory  Nazianzen  at  Constan¬ 
tinople,  and  of  Didymus  in  Alexandria,  a  native  of 
Dalmatia,  yet  an  inhabitant,  at  different  times  of  his 
life,  of  Gaul,  Syria,  and  Palestine. 

8.  St.  Jerome  speaks  for  the  whole  world,  except 
Africa  ;  and  for  Africa  in  the  fourth  century,  if  we  must 
limit  so  world-wide  an  authority  to  place,  witnesses 
St.  Augustine  (354-430).  He  repeats  the  words  as  if 
a  proverb,  “By  a  woman  death,  by  a  woman  life” 
( Opp .  t.  v.  Serm.  232)  ;  elsewhere  he  enlarges  on  the 
idea  conveyed  in  it.  In  one  place  he  quotes  St.  Ire- 
naeus’s  words,  as  cited  above  (adv.  Julian,  i.  n.  5).  In 
another  he  speaks  as  follows  : 

“It  is  a  great  sacrament  that,  whereas  through 
woman  death  became  our  portion,  so  life  was  born  to  us 
by  woman  ;  that,  in  the  case  of  both  sexes,  male  and 
female,  the  baffled  devil  should  be  tormented,  when  on 
the  overthrow  of  both  sexes  he  was  rejoicing;  whose 
punishment  had  been  small,  if  both  sexes  had  been 
liberated  in  us,  without  our  being  liberated  through 
both”  {Opp.  t.  vi.  De  Agon.  Christ,  c.  24). 

9.  St.  Peter  Chrysologus  (400-450),  Bishop  of 
Ravenna,  and  one  of  the  chief  authorities  in  the  4th 
General  Council : 

“  Blessed  art  thou  among  women  ;  for  among  women, 
on  whose  womb  Eve,  who  was  cursed,  brought  punish¬ 
ment,  Mary,  being  blest,  rejoices,  is  honored,  and  is 
looked  up  to.  And  woman  now  is  truly  made  through 


50 


Belief  of  Catholics 


grace  the  Mother  of  the  living,  who  had  been  by  nature 
the  mother  of  the  dying.  .  .  .  Heaven  feels  awe  of 

God,  angels  tremble  at  Him,  the  creature  sustains  Him 
not,  nature  sufficeth  not ;  and  yet  one  maiden  so  takes, 
receives,  entertains  Him,  as  a  guest  within  her  breast, 
that,  for  the  very  hire  of  her  home,  and  as  the  price  of 
her  womb,  she  asks,  she  obtains  peace  for  the  earth, 
glory  for  the  heavens,  salvation  for  the  lost,  life  for  the 
dead,  a  heavenly  parentage  for  the  earthly,  the  union 
of  God  Himself  with  human  flesh”  ( Serm .  140). 

It  is  difficult  to  express  more  explicitly,  though  in 
oratorical  language,  that  the  Blessed  Virgin  had  a  real 
meritorious  co-operation,  a  share  which  had  a  “hire” 
and  a  “price,”  in  the  reversal  of  the  fall. 

10.  St.  Fulgentius,  Bishop  of  Ruspe  in  Africa  (468- 
533).  The  homily  which  contains  the  following  pas¬ 
sage  is  placed  by  Ceillier  (t.  xvi.  p.  127)  among  his 
genuine  works : 

“  I11  the  wife  of  the  first  man,  the  wickedness  of  the 
devil  depraved  her  seduced  mind  ;  in  the  mother  of  the 
Second  Man,  the  grace  of  God  preserved  both  her  mind 
inviolate  and  her  flesh.  O11  her  mind  it  conferred  the 
most  firm  faith ;  from  her  flesh  it  took  away  lust 
altogether.  Since  then  man  was  in  a  miserable  way 
condemned  for  sin,  therefore  without  sin  was  in  a 
marvellous  way  born  the  God-man”  (Serm.  2,  p.  124. 
De  Dupl.  Nativ.) 

Accordingly,  in  the  sermon  which  follows — if  it  is 
his — he  continues  thus,  illustrating  her  office  of  uni¬ 
versal  Mother,  as  ascribed  to  her  by  St.  Epiphanius  : 

“  Come  ye  virgins  to  a  Virgin,  come  ye  who  conceive 
to  her  who  conceived,  ye  who  bear  to  one  who  bore, 
mothers  to  a  mother,  ye  that  suckle  to  one  who  suckled, 
young  girls  to  the  young  girl.  It  is  for  this  reason  that 
the  Virgin  Mary  has  taken  on  her  in  our  Eord  Jesus 


that  She  is  the  Second  Eve. 


51 


Christ  all  Jliese  divisions  of  nature,  that  to  all  women 
who  have  recourse  to  her  she  may  be  a  succor,  and  so 
restore  the  whole  race  of  women  who  come  to  her,  being 
the  new  Eve,  by  keeping  virginity,  as  the  new  Adam, 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  recovers  the  whole  race  of  men.” 

Such  is  the  rudimental  view,  as  I  have  called  it, 
which  the  Fathers  have  given  us  of  Mary,  as  the  Sec¬ 
ond  Eve,  the  Mother  of  the  living  :  I  have  cited  ten 
authors.  I  could  cite  more,  were  it  necessary  :  except 
the  two  last,  they  write  gravely  and  without  any 
rhetoric.  I  allow  that  the  two  last  write  in  a  different 
style,  since  the  extracts  I  have  made  are  from  their 
sermons ;  but  I  do  not  see  that  the  coloring  conceals 
the  outline.  And  after  all,  men  use  oratory  on  great 
subjects,  not  on  small;  nor  would  they,  and  other 
Fathers  whom  I  might  quote,  have  lavished  their  high 
language  upon  the  Blessed  Virgin,  such  as  they  gave  to 
no  one  else,  unless  they  knew  well  that  no  one  else  had 
such  claims  as  she  had  on  their  love  and  veneration. 


CHAPTER  V. 


THE  IMMACUEATE  CONCEPTION. 


True  and  False  Notions  of  the  Immaculate  Concep¬ 
tion. — This  Doctrine  flows  from  that  of  the 
Second  Eve. — Remarks  on  Original  Sin  and  on 
the  Manner  of  Mary’s  exemption  from  it. — St. 
Augustine’s  Teaching  of  the.  Doctrine. 

ND  now  I  proceed  to  dwell  for  a  while  upon  two 


ZjL  inferences,  which  it  is  obvious  to  draw  from  the 
rudimental  doctrine  itself ;  the  first  relates  to  the  sanc¬ 
tity  of  the  Blessed  Virgin,  the  second  to  her  dignity. 

Her  sanctity :  She  holds,  as  the  Fathers  teach  us, 
that  office  in  our  restoration  which  Eve  held  in  our 
fall ;  now,  in  the  first  place,  what  were  Eve’s  endow¬ 
ments  to  enable  her  to  enter  upon  her  trial  ?  She 
could  not  have  stood  against  the  wiles  of  the  devil, 
though  she  was  innocent  and  sinless,  without  the  grant 
of  a  large  grace.  And  this  she  had  ;  a  heavenly  gift, 
which  was  over  and  above  and  additional  to  that  nature 
of  hers,  which  she  received  from  Adam,  a  gift  which 
had  been  given  to  Adam  also  before  her,  at  the  very 
time — as  it  is  commonly  held — of  his  original  formation. 
This  is  Anglican  doctrine,  as  well  as  Catholic  ;  it  is  the 
doctrine  of  Bishop  Bull.  He  has  written  a  dissertation 
on  the  point.  He  speaks  of  the  doctrine  which  ‘  ‘  many 
of  the  Schoolmen  affirm,  that  Adam  was  created  in 
grace,  that  is,  received  a  principle  of  grace  and  divine 


52 


Belief  of  Catholics  in  Her  Immaculate  Conception.  53 

life  from  his  very  creation,  or  in  the  moment  of  the 
infusion  of  his  soul ;  of  which,”  he  says,  “  for  my  own 
part  I  have  little  doubt.”  Again,  he  says,  “It  is 
abundantly  manifest,  from  the  many  testimonies  alleged, 
that  the  ancient  doctors  of  the  Church  did,  with  a 
general  consent,  acknowledge  that  our  first  parents,  in 
the  state  of  integrity,  had  in  them  something  more  than 
nature,  that  is,  were  endowed  with  the  divine  principle 
of  the  Spirit,  in  order  to  a  supernatural  felicity.” 

Now,  taking  this  for  granted,  because  I  know  that 
you  and  those  who  agree  with  you  maintain  it  as  well 
as  we  do,  I  ask  you,  have  you  any  intention  to  deny 
that  Mary  was  as  fully  endowed  as  Kve  ?  Is  it  any 
violent  inference,  that  she,  who  was  to  co-operate  in  the 
redemption  of  the  world,  at  least  was  not  less  endowed 
with  power  from  on  high,  than  she  who,  given  as  a 
helpmate  to  her  husband,  did  in  the  event  but  co-oper¬ 
ate  with  him  for  its  ruin  ?  If  Kve  was  raised  above 
human  nature  by  that  indwelling  moral  gift  which  we 
call  grace,  is  it  rash  to  say  that  Mary  had  even  a 
greater  grace  ?  And  this  consideration  gives  signifi¬ 
cance  to  the  Angel’s  salutation  of  her  as  “full  of 
grace,”  an  interpretation  of  the  original  word  which  is 
undoubtedly  the  right  one,  as  soon  as  we  resist  the 
common  Protestant  assumption  that  grace  is  a  mere 
external  approbation  or  acceptance,  answering  to  the 
word  “favor,”  whereas  it  is,  as  the  Fathers  teach,  a 
real  inward  condition  or  superadded  quality  of  soul. 
And  if  Kve  had  this  supernatural  inward  gift  given  her 
from  the  first  moment  of  her  personal  existence,  is  it 
possible  to  deny  that  Mary  too  had  this  gift  from  the 
very  first  moment  of  her  personal  existence  ?  I  do  not 
know  how  to  resist  this  inference  ;  well,  this  is  simply 
and  literally  the  doctrine  of  the  Immaculate  Concep¬ 
tion.  I  say  the  doctrine  of  the  Immaculate  Conception 


54 


Belie f  of  Cat  ho  'ics 


is  in  its  substance  this,  and  nothing  more  or  less  than 
this  (putting  aside  the  question  of  degrees  of  grace)  ; 
and  it  really  does  seem  to  me  bound  up  in  the  doctrine 
of  the  Fathers,  that  Mary  is  the  second  Kve. 

It  is  indeed  to  me  a  most  strange  phenomenon  that  so 
many  learned  and  devout  men  stumble  at  this  doctrine ; 
and  I  can  only  account  for  it  by  supposing  that  in 
matter  of  fact  they  do  not  know  what  we  mean  by  the 
Immaculate  Conception ;  and  your  volume  (may  I  say 
it?)  bears  out  my  suspicion.  It  is  a  great  consolation 
to  have  reason  for  thinking  so — reason  for  believing  that 
in  some  sort  the  persons  in  question  are  in  the  position 
of  those  great  Saints  in  former  times,  who  are  said  to 
have  hesitated  about  the  doctrine,  when  they  would  not 
have  hesitated  at  all  if  the  word  ‘  *  Conception  ’  ’  had 
been  clearly  explained  in  that  sense  in  which  now  it  is 
universally-  received.  I  do  not  see  how  any  one  who 
holds  with  Bull  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  supernatur¬ 
al  endowments  of  our  first  parents,  has  fair  reason  for 
doubting  our  doctrine  about  the  Blessed  Virgin.  It  has 
no  reference  whatever  to  her  parents,  but  simply  to  her 
own  person  ;  it  does  but  affirm  that,  together  with  the 
nature  which  she  inherited  from  her  parents,  that  is, 
her  own  nature,  she  had  a  superadded  fulness  of  grace, 
and  that  from  the  first  moment  of  her  existence.  Sup¬ 
pose  Kve  had  stood  the  trial,  and  not  lost  her  first 
grace;  and  suppose  she  had  eventually  had  children, 
those  children  from  the  first  moment  of  their  existence 
would,  through  divine  bounty,  have  received  the  same 
privilege  that  she  had  ever  had  ;  that  is,  as  she  was  taken 
from  Adam’s  side,  in  a  garment,  so  to  say,  of  grace,  so 
they  in  turn  would  have  received  what  may  be  called  an 
immaculate  conception.  They  would  have  then  been 
conceived  in  grace,  as  in  fact  they  are  conceived  in  sin. 
What  is  there  difficult  in  this  doctrine  ?  What  is  there 


in  Her  Immaculate  Conception . 


55 


unnatural  ?  Mary  may  be  called,  as  it  were,  a  daugh¬ 
ter  of  Eve  unfallen.  You  believe  with  us  that  St.  John 
Baptist  had  grace  given  to  him  three  months  before  his 
birth,  at  the  time  that  the  Blessed  Virgin  visited  his 
mother.  He  accordingly  was  not  immaculately  con¬ 
ceived,  because  he  was  alive  before  grace  came  to  him ; 
but  our  Eady’s  case  only  differs  from  his  in  this  respect, 
that  to  her  the  grace  of  God  came,  not  three  months 
merely  before  her  birth,  but  from  the  first  moment  of 
her  being,  as  it  had  been  given  to  Eve. 

But  it  may  be  said,  How  does  this  enable  us  to  say 
that  she  was  conceived  without  orighial  sin  ?  If  Angli¬ 
cans  knew  what  we  mean  by  original  sin,  they  would 
not  ask  the  question.  Our  doctrine  of  original  sin  is 
not  the  same  as  the  Protestant  doctrine.  “  Original 
sin,”  with  us,  cannot  be  called  sin,  in  the  mere  ordinary 
sense  of  the  word  “  sin  ”  ;  it  is  a  term  denoting  Adam’s 
sin  as  transferred  to  us,  or  the  state  to  which  Adam’s 
sin  reduces  his  children  ;  but  by  Protestants  it  seems  to 
be  understood  as  sin,  in  much  the  same  sense  as  actual 
sin.  We,  with  the  Fathers,  think  of  it  as  something 
negative,  Protestants  as  something  positive.  Protes¬ 
tants  hold  that  it  is  a  disease,  a  radical  change  of 
nature,  an  active  poison  internally  corrupting  the  soul, 
infecting  its  primary  elements,  and  disorganizing  it ; 
and  they  fancy  that  we  ascribe  a  different  nature  from 
ours  to  the  Blessed  Virgin,  different  from  that  of  her 
parents,  and  from  that  of  fallen  Adam.  We  hold 
nothing  of  the  kind  ;  we  consider  that  in  Adam  she 
died,  as  others ;  that  she  was  included,  together  with 
the  whole  race,  in  Adam’s  sentence  ;  that  she  incurred 
his  debt,  as  we  do  ;  but  that,  for  the  sake  of  Him  who 
was  to  redeem  her  and  us  upon  the  Cross,  to  her  the 
debt  was  remitted  by  anticipation,  on  her  the  sentence 
was  not  carried  out,  except  indeed  as  regards  her 


56 


Belief  of  Catholics 


natural  death,  for  she  died  when  her  time  came,  as 
others.  All  this  we  teach,  but  we  deny  that  she  had 
original  sin  ;  for  by  original  sin  we  mean,  as  I  have 
already  said,  something  negative,  viz.,  this  only,  the 
deprivation  of  that  supernatural  unmerited  grace  which 
Adam  and  Bve  had  on  their  first  formation,  deprivation 
and  the  consequences  of  deprivation.  Mary  could  not 
merit,  any  more  than  they,  the  restoration  of  that 
grace  ;  but  it  was  restored  to  her  by  God’s  free  bounty, 
from  the  very  first  moment  of  her  existence,  and  there- 
bjq  in  fact,  she  never  came  under  the  original  curse, 
which  consisted  in  the  loss  of  it.  And  she  had  this 
special  privilege  in  order  to  fit  her  to  become  the 
Mother  of  her  and  our  Redeemer,  to  fit  her  mentally, 
spiritually  for  it ;  so  that,  by  the  aid  of  the  first  grace, 
she  might  so  grow  in  grace  that  when  the  angel  came 
and  her  Lord  was  at  hand,  she  might  be  “  full  of 
grace,”  prepared,  as  far  as  a  creature  could  be  prepared, 
to  receive  Him  into  her  bosom. 

I  have  drawn  the  doctrine  of  the  Immaculate  Con¬ 
ception,  as  an  immediate  inference,  from  the  primitive 
doctrine  that  Mary  is  the  second  Kve.  The  argument 
seems  to  me  conclusive  :  and,  if  it  has  not  been  uni¬ 
versally  taken  as  such,  this  has  come  to  pass,  because 
there  has  not  been  a  clear  understanding  among  Catho¬ 
lics  what  exactly  was  meant  by  the  “  Immaculate  Con¬ 
ception.”  To  many  it  seemed  to  imply  that  the 
Blessed  Virgin  did  not  die  in  Adam,  that  she  did  not 
come  under  the  penalty  of  the  fall,  that  she  was  not 
redeemed,  that  she  was  conceived  in  some  way  incon¬ 
sistent  with  the  verse  in  the  Miserere  Psalm.  If  con¬ 
troversy  had  in  earlier  days  so  cleared  the  subject  as 
to  make  it  plain  to  all,  that  the  doctrine  meant  nothing 
else  than  that  in  fact  in  her  case  the  general  sentence 
on  mankind  was  not  carried  out,  and  that,  by  means  of 


in  Her  Immaculate  Conception, 


57 


the  indwelling  in  her  of  divine  grace  from  the  first 
moment  of  her  being  (and  this  is  all  the  decree  of  1854 
has  declared) ,  I  cannot  believe  that  the  doctrine  would 
have  ever  been  opposed ;  for  an  instinctive  sentiment 
has  led  Christians  jealously  to  put  the  Blessed  Mary 
aside  when  sin  comes  into  discussion.  This  is  ex¬ 
pressed  in  the  well-known  words  of  St.  Augustine,  All 
have  sinned  “  except  the  Holy  Virgin  Mary,  concern¬ 
ing  whom,  for  the  honor  of  the  Lord,  I  wish  no  question 
to  be  raised  at  all,  when  we  are  treating  of  sins”  (de 
Nat.  et  Grat.,  42)  ;  words  which,  whatever  was  St. 
Augustine’s  actual  occasion  of  using  them — to  which 
you  refer,  p.  176 — certainly,  in  the  spirit  which  they 
breathe,  are  well  adapted  to  convey  the  notion,  that, 
though  her  parents  had  no  privilege  beyond  other 
parents,  she  had  not  personally  any  part  in  sin  what¬ 
ever.  It  is  true  that  several  great  Fathers  of  the  fourth 
century  do  imply  or  assert  that  on  one  or  two  occasions 
she  did  sin  venially  or  showed  infirmity.  This  is  the 
only  real  objection  which  I  know  of;  and  as  I  do  not 
wish  to  pass  it  over  lightly,  I  propose  to  consider  it  at 
the  end  of  this  letter. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


MARY’S  DIGNITY. 


Reflections  on  Mary’s  Historical  Position  in  the 
Gospels. — What  was  She  in  Merit  and  in  Office  and 
as  a  Model? — Mary’s  Exaltation  taught  by  the 
Vision  of  the  Woman  and  Child  in  the  Apocalypse. 
— Antiquity  of  the  Picture  and  Image  of  the 
Virgin  and  Child. — Brief  Exposi  i  ion  of  St.  John’s 
Vision. — Concurrent  Teaching  of  Scripture,  Tra¬ 
dition  of  both  East  and  West,  and  of  the  Fathers. 

ND  now  her  dignity.  Here  let  us  suppose  that  our 


1  i.  first  parents  had  overcome  in  their  trial ;  and  had 
gained  for  their  descendants  for  ever  the  full  possession, 
as  if  by  right,  of  the  privileges  which  were  promised  to 
their  obedience,  grace  here  and  glory  hereafter.  Is  it 
possible  that  those  descendants,  pious  and  happy  from 
age  to  age  in  their  temporal  homes,  would  have  forgot¬ 
ten  their  benefactors?  Would  they  not  have  followed 
them  in  thought  into  the  heavens,  and  gratefully  com¬ 
memorated  them  on  earth  ?  The  history  of  the  tempta¬ 
tion,  the  craft  of  the  serpent,  their  steadfastness  in 
obedience — the  loyal  vigilance,  the  sensitive  purity  of 
Eve — the  great  issue,  salvation  wrought  out  for  all 
generations,  would  have  been  never  from  their  minds, 
ever  welcome  to  their  ears.  This  would  have  taken 
place  from  the  necessity  of  our  nature.  Every  nation 
has  its  mythical  hymns  and  epics  about  its  first  fathers 


Belief  of  Catholics  in  Her  Exaltation.  59 

and.  its  heroes.  The  great  deeds  of  Charlemagne, 
Alfred,  Coeur  de  Eion,  Eouis  the  Ninth,  Wallace,  Joan 
of  Arc,  do  n6t  die  ;  and  though  their  persons  are  gone 
from  us,  we  make  much  of  their  names.  Milton’s 
Adam,  after  his  fall,  understands  the  force  of  this  law, 
and  shrinks  from  the  prospect  of  its  operation. 

“  Who  of  all  ages  to  succeed,  but,  feeling 
The  evil  on  him  brought  by  me,  will  curse 
My  head  ?  Ill  fare  our  ancestor  impure : 

For  this  we  may  thank  Adam.” 

If  this  anticipation  of  the  first  man  has  not  been  ful¬ 
filled  in  the  event,  it  is  owing  to  the  exigencies  of  our 
penal  life,  our  state  of  perpetual  change,  and  the  igno¬ 
rance  and  unbelief  incurred  by  the  fall ;  also  because, 
fallen  as  we  are,  still  from  the  hopefulness  of  our  na¬ 
ture,  wre  feel  more  pride, in  our  national  great  men,  than 
dejection  at  our  national  misfortunes.  Much  more  then 
in  the  great  kingdom  and  people  of  God ;  the  Saints  are 
ever  in  our  sight,  and  not  as  mere  ineffectual  ghosts  or 
dim  memories,  but  as  if  present  bodily  in  their  past 
selves.  It  is  said  of  them,  “Their  works  do  follow 
them  “  ;  what  they  w7ere  here,  such  are  they  in  heaven 
and  in  the  Church.  As  we  call  them  by  their  earthly 
names,  so  we  contemplate  them  in  their  earthly  charac¬ 
ters  and  histories.  Their  acts,  callings,  and  relations 
below  are  types  and  anticipations  of  their  present 
mission  above.  Even  in  the  case  of  our  Eord  Himself, 
whose  native  home  is  the  eternal  heavens,  it  is  said  of 
Him  in  His  state  of  glory,  that  He  is  a  “Priest  for 
ever”  ;  and  when  He  comes  again,  He  will  be  recog¬ 
nized  by'  those  who  pierced  Him  as  being  the  very 
same  that  Fie  was  on  earth.  The  only  question  is, 
whether  the  Blessed  Virgin  had  a  part,  a  real  part,  in 
the  economy  of  grace  ;  whether,  when  she  was  011  earth, 


6o 


Belief  of  Catholics 


she  secured  by  her  deeds  any  claim  on  our  memories  ; 
for,  if  she  did,  it  is  impossible  we  should  put  her  away 
from  us,  merely  because  she  has  gone' hence,  and 
should  not  look  at  her  still  according  to  the  measure  of 
her  earthly  history,  with  gratitude  and  expectation. 
If,  as  St.  Irenaeus  says,  she  acted  the  part  of  an  Advo¬ 
cate,  a  friend  in  need,  even  in  her  mortal  life ;  if,  as  St. 
Jerome  and  St.  Ambrose  says,  she  was  on  earth  the 
great  pattern  of  virgins,  if  she  had  a  meritorious  share 
in  bringing  about  our  redemption,  if  her  maternity  was 
gained  by  her  faith  and  obedience,  if  her  Divine  Son 
was  subject  to  her,  and  if  she  stood  by  the  Cross  with  a 
mother’s  heart  and  drank  in  to  the  full  those  sufferings 
which  it  was  her  portion  to  gaze  upon,  it  is  impossible 
that  we  should  not  associate  these  characteristics  of  her 
life  on  earth  with  her  present  state  of  blessedness  ;  and 
this  surely  she  anticipated,  when  she  said  in  her  hymn 
that  all  “  generations  should  call  her  blessed.” 

I  am  aware  that,  in  thus  speaking,  I  am  following  a 
line  of  thought  which  is  rather  a  meditation  than  an 
argument  in  controversy,  and  I  shall  not  carry  it 
further ;  but  still,  before  turning  to  other  topics,  it  is  to 
the  point  to  inquire,  whether  the  popular  astonishment, 
excited  by  our  belief  in  the  Blessed  Virgin’s  present 
dignity,  does  not  arise  from  the  circumstance  that  the 
bulk  of  men,  engaged  in  matters  of  this  world,  have 
never  calmly  considered  her  historical  position  in  the 
Gospels,  so  as  rightly  to  realize  (if  I  may  use  the  word 
a  second  time)  what  that  position  imports.  I  do  not 
claim  for  the  generality  of  Catholics  any  greater  powers 
of  reflection  upon  the  objects  of  their  faith  than  Pro¬ 
testants  commonljT  have ;  but,  putting  the  run  of 
Catholics  aside,  there  is  a  sufficient  number  of  religious 
men  among  us  who,  instead  of  expending  their  de¬ 
votional  energies — as  so  many  serious  Protestants  do^ 


in  Her  Exaltation. 


61 


on  abstract  doctrines,  such  as  justification  by  faith  only, 
or  the  sufficiency  of  Holy  Scripture,  employ  themselves 
in  the  contemplation  of  Scripture  facts,  and  bring  out 
before  their  minds  in  a  tangible  form  the  doctrines  in¬ 
volved  in  them,  and  give  such  a  substance  and  color  to 
the  sacred  history  as  to  influence  their  brethren  ;  and 
their  brethren,  though  superficial  themselves,  are 
drawn  by  their  Catholic  instinct  to  accept  conclusions 
which  they  could  not  indeed  themselves  have  elicited, 
but  which,  when  elicited,  they  feel  to  be  true.  How¬ 
ever,  it  would  be  out  of  place  to  pursue  this  course  of 
reasoning  here ;  and  instead  of  doing  so,  I  shall  take 
what  perhaps  you  may  think  a  very  bold  step — I  shall 
find  the  doctrine  of  our  Cady’s  present  exaltation  in 
Scripture. 

I  mean  to  find  it  in  the  vision  of  the  Woman  and 
Child  in  the  twelfth  chapter  of  the  Apocalypse ;  *  now 
here  two  objections  will  be  made  to  me  at  once  :  first, 
that  such  an  interpretation  is  but  poorly  supported  by 
the  Fathers,  and  secondly,  that  in  ascribing  such  a 
picture  of  the  Madonna — as  it  may  be  called — to  the 
Apostolic  age,  I  am  committing  an  anachronism. 

As  to  the  former  of  these  objections,  I  answer  as 
follows  :  Christians  have  never  gone  to  Scripture  for 
proof  of  their  doctrines,  till  there  was  actual  need,  from 
the  pressure  of  controversy ;  if  in  those  times  the 
Blessed  Virgin’s  dignity  was  unchallenged  on  all  hands, 
as  a  matter  of  doctrine,  Scripture,  as  far  as  its  argumen¬ 
tative  matter  was  concerned,  was  likely  to  remain  a 
sealed  book  to  them.  Thus,  to  take  an  instance  in 
point,  the  Catholic  party  in  the  Anglican  Church — say, 
the  Nonjurors — unable  by  their  theory  of  religion 
simply  to  take  their  stand  on  Tradition,  and  distressed 

*  Vid.  Essay  on  Doctr.  Development,  p.  384,  and  Bishop  Ullathorne’s 
work  on  the  Immaculate  Conception,  p.  77. 


62 


Belief  of  Catholics 


for  proof  of  their  doctrines,  had  their  eyes  sharpened  to 
scrutinize  and  to  understand  in  many  places  the  letter  of 
Holy  Scripture,  which  to  others  brought  no  instruction. 
And  the  peculiarity  of  their  interpretations  is  this,  that 
these  have  in  themselves  great  logical  cogency,  yet  are 
but  faintly  supported  by  patristical  commentators. 
Such  is  the  use  of  the  word  poiein  or  facere  in  our  Lord’s 
institution  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  which,  by  a  reference 
to  the  Old  Testament,  is  found  to  be  a  word  of  sacrifice. 
Such  again  is  leitoyrgoynton  in  the  passage  in  the  Acts 
“  As  they  ministered  to  the  Lord  and  fasted,”  which 
again  is  a  sacerdotal  term.  And  such  the  passage  in 
Rom.  xv.  1 6,  in  which  several  terms  are  used  which 
have  an  allusion  to  the  sacrificial  Eucharistic  rite. 
Such  too  is  St.  Paul’s  repeated  message  to  the  household 
of  Onesiphorus,  with  no  mention  of  Onesiphorus  him¬ 
self,  but  in  one  place  with  the  addition  of  a  prayer  that 
“  he  might  find  mercy  of  the  Lord  ”  in  the  day  of  judg¬ 
ment,  which,  taking  into  account  its  wording  and  the 
known  usage  of  the  first  centuries,  we  can  hardly  deny 
is  a  prayer  for  his  soul.  Other  texts  there  are,  which 
ought  to  find  a  place  in  ancient  controversies,  and  the 
omission  of  which  by  the  Fathers  affords  matter  for 
more  surprise,  those,  for  instance,  which,  according  to 
Middleton’s  rule,  are  real  proofs  of  our  Lord’s  divinity, 
and  yet  are  passed  over  by  Catholic  disputants ;  for 
these  bear  upon  a  then  existing  controversy  of  the  first 
moment,  and  of  the  most  urgent  exigency. 

As  to  the  second  objection  which  I  have  supposed,  so 
far  from  allowing  it,  I  consider  that  it  is  built  upon  a 
mere  imaginary  fact,  and  that  the  truth  of  the  matter 
lies  in  the  very  contrary  direction.  The  Virgin  and 
Child  is  not  a  mere  modern  idea  ;  on  the  contrary,  it  is 
represented  again  and  again,  as  every  visitor  to  Rome  is 
aware,  in  the  paintings  of  the  Catacombs.  Mary  is 


in  Her  Exaltation. 


^3 


there  drawn  with  the  Divine  Infant  in  her  lap,  she  with 
hands  extended  in  prayer,  He  with  His  hand  in  the  at¬ 
titude  of  blessing.  No  representation  can  more  forcibly 
convey  the  doctrine  of  the  high  dignity  of  the  Mother, 
and,  I  will  add,  of  her  influence  with  her  Son.  Why 
should  the  memory  of  His  time  of  subjection  be  so  dear 
to  Christians,  and  so  carefully  preserved  ?  The  only 
question  to  be  determined  is  the  precise  date  of  these 
remarkable  monuments  of  the  first  age  of  Christianity. 
That  they  belong  to  the  centuries  of  what  Anglicans 
call  the  “  undivided  Church  ”  is  certain  ;  but  lately  in¬ 
vestigations  have  been  pursued,  which  place  some  of 
them  at  an  earlier  date  than  any  one  anticipated  as  pos¬ 
sible.  I  am  not  in  a  position  to  quote  largely  from  the 
works  of  the  Cavaliere  de  Rossi,  who  has  thrown  so 
much  light  upon  the  subject;  but  I  have  his  “  Imagini 
Scelte,”  published  in  1863,  and  they  are  sufficient  for 
my  purpose.  In  this  work  he  has  gnren  us  from  the 
Catacombs  various  representations  of  the  Virgin  and 
Child ;  the  latest  of  these  belong  to  the  early  part  of 
the  fourth  century,  but  the  earliest  he  believes  to  be  re¬ 
ferable  to  the  very  age  of  the  Apostles.  He  comes  to 
this  conclusion  from  the  style  and  the  skill  of  its  com¬ 
position,  and  from  the  history,  locality,  and  existing  in¬ 
scriptions  of  the  subterranean  in  which  it  is  found. 
However  he  does  not  go  so  far  as  to  insist  upon  so  early 
a  date ;  yet  the  utmost  concession  he  makes  is  to  refer 
the  painting  to  the  era  of  the  first  Antonines — that  is,  to 
a  date  within  half  a  century  of  the  death  of  St.  John. 
I  consider  then,  that,  as  you  would  use  in  controversy 
with  Protestants,  and  fairly,  the  traditional  doctrine  of 
the  Church  in  early  times,  as  an  explanation  of  a  parti¬ 
cular  passage  of  Scripture,  or  at  least  as  a  suggestion, 
or  as  a  defence,  of  the  sense  which  you  may  wish  to  put 
upon  it,  quite  apart  from  the  question  whether  your  in- 


64 


Belief  of  Catholics 


terpretation  itself  is  directly  traditional,  so  it  is  lawful 
for  me,  though  I  have  not  the  positive  words  of  the 
Fathers  on  my  side,  to  shelter  my  own  interpretation  of 
the  Apostle’s  vision  in  the  Apocalypse  under  the  fact  of 
the  extant  pictures  of  Mother  and  Child  in  the  Roman 
Catacombs.  Again,  there  is  another  principle  of  Scrip¬ 
ture  interpretation  which  we  should  hold  as  well  as  you, 
viz.,  when  we  speak  of  a  doctrine  being  contained  in 
Scripture,  we  do  not  necessarily  mean  that  it  is  con¬ 
tained  there  in  direct  categorical  terms,  but  that  there 
is  no  satisfactory  way  of  accounting  for  the  language 
and  expressions  of  the  sacred  writers,  concerning  the 
subject-matter  in  question,  except  to  suppose  that  they 
held  concerning  it  the  opinion  which  we  hold,  that  they 
would  not  have  spoken  as  they  have  spoken,  u?iless  they 
held  it.  For  myself  I  have  ever  felt  the  truth  of  this 
principle,  as  regards  the  Scripture  proof  of  the  Holy 
Trinity  ;  I  should  not  have  found  out  that  doctrine  in 
the  sacred  text  without  previous  traditional  teaching  ; 
but,  when  once  it  is  suggested  from  without,  it  com¬ 
mends  itself  as  the  one  true  interpretation,  from  its  ap¬ 
positeness,  because  no  other  view  of  doctrine,  which 
can  be  ascribed  to  the  inspired  writers,  so  happily  solves 
the  obscurities  and  seeming  inconsistencies  of  their 
teaching.  And  now  to  apply  what  I  have  been  saying 
to  the  passage  in  the  Apocalypse. 

If  there  is  an  Apostle  on  whom,  h  priori ,  our  eyes 
would  be  fixed,  as  likely  to  teach  us  about  the  Blessed 
Virgin,  it  is  St.  John,  to  whom  she  was  committed  by 
our  Ford  on  the  Cross  ;  with  whom,  as  tradition  goes, 
she  lived  at  Ephesus  till  she  was  taken  away.  This  an¬ 
ticipation  is  confirmed  a  posteriori ;  for,  as  I  have  said 
above,  one  of  the  earliest  and  fullest  of  our  informants 
concerning  her  dignity,  as  being  the  second  Eve,  is 
Irenaeus,  who  came  to  Lyons  from  Asia  Minor,  and  had 


in  Her  Exaltation. 


65 


been  taught  by  the  immediate  disciples  of  St.  John. 
The  Apostle’s  vision  is  as  follows  : 

‘  ‘  A  great  sign  appeared  in  heaven :  A  woman  clothed 
with  the  Sun,  and  the  Moon  under  her  feet ;  and  on  her 
head  a  crown  of  twelve  stars.  And  being  with  child, 
she  cried  travailing  in  birth,  and  was  in  pain  to  be  de¬ 
livered.  And  there  was  seen  another  sign  in  heaven; 
and  behold  a  great  red  dragon.  .  .  .  And  the 

dragon  stood  before  the  woman  who  was  ready  to  be  de¬ 
livered,  that,  when  she  should  be  delivered,  he  might 
devour  her  son.  And  she  brought  forth  a  man  child, 
who  was  to  rule  all  nations  with  an  iron  rod ;  and  her 
son  was  taken  up  to  God  and  to  His  throne.  And  the 
woman  fled  into  the  wilderness.”  Now  I  do  not  deny, 
of  course,  that  under  the  image  of  the  Woman,  the 
Church  is  signified  ;  but  what  I  would  maintain  is  this, 
that  the  holy  Apostle  would  not  have  spoken  of  the 
Church  under  this  particular  image,  unless  there  had 
existed  a  blessed  Virgin  Mary,  who  was  exalted  on 
high,  and  the  object  of  veneration  to  all  the  faithful. 

No  one  doubts  that  the  “  man-child  ”  spoken  of  is  an 
allusion  to  our  Tord  :  why  then  is  not  “the  woman” 
an  allusion  to  His  Mother?  This  surely  is  the  obvious 
sense  of  the  words  ;  of  course  they  have  a  further  sense 
also,  which  is  the  scope  of  the  image  ;  doubtless  the 
Child  represents  the  children  of  the  Church,  and  doubt¬ 
less  the  woman  represents  the  Church  ;  this,  I  grant,  is 
the  real  or  direct  sense,  but  what  is  the  sense  of  the 
symbol  under  which  that  real  sense  is  conveyed  ?  who 
are  the  Woman  and  the  Child?  I  answer,  they  are  not 
personifications  but  Persons.  This  is  true  of  the  Child, 
therefore  it  is  true  of  the  Woman. 

But  again  :  not  only  Mother  and  Child,  but  a  serpent 
is  introduced  into  the  vision.  Such  a  meeting  of  man, 
woman,  and  serpent  has  not  been  found  in  Scripture 


66 


Belief  of  Catholics 


since  the  beginning  of  Scripture,  and  now  it  is  found 
in  its  end.  Moreover,  in  the  passage  in  the  Apocalypse, 
as  if  to  supply,  before  Scripture  came  to  an  end,  what 
was  wanting  in  its  beginning,  we  are  told,  and  for  the 
first  time,  that  the  serpent  in  Paradise  was  the  evil 
spirit.  If  the  dragon  of  St.  John  is  the  same  as  the 
serpent  of  Moses,  and  the  man-child  is  “  the  seed  of  the 
woman,”  why  is  not  the  woman  herself  she  whose  seed 
the  man-child  is?  And,  if  the  first  woman  is  not  an 
allegory,  why  is  the  second  ?  If  the  first  woman  is  Eve, 
why  is  not  the  second  Mary  ? 

But  this  is  not  all.  The  image  of  the  woman,  ac¬ 
cording  to  general  Scripture  usage,  is  too  bold  and  pro¬ 
minent  for  a  mere  personification.  Scripture  is  not  fond 
of  allegories.  We  have  indeed  frequent  figures  there, 
as  when  the  sacred  writers  speak  of  the  arm  or  sword 
of  the  Ford  ;  and  so  too  when  they  speak  of  Jerusalem 
or  Samaria  in  the  feminine  ;  or  of  the  Church  as  a  bride 
or  as  a  vine ;  but  they  are  not  much  given  to  dressing 
up  abstract  ideas  or  generalizations  in  personal  attri¬ 
butes.  This  is  the  classical  rather  than  the  Scriptural 
style.  Xenophon  places  Hercules  between  Virtue  and 
Vice,  represented  as  women ;  Aeschylus  introduces  into 
his  drama  Force  and  Violence  ;  Virgil  gives  personality 
to  public  rumor  or  Fame,  and  Plautus  to  Poverty.  So 
on  monuments  done  in  the  classical  style,  we  see 
virtues,  vices,  rivers,  renown,  death,  and  the  like, 
turned  into  human  figures  of  men  and  women.  Cer¬ 
tainly  I  do  not  deny  there  are  some  instances  of  this 
method  in  Scripture,  but  I  say  that  such  poetical  com¬ 
positions  are  strikingly  unlike  its  usual  method.  Thus, 
we  at  once  feel  the  difference  from  Scripture,  when  we 
betake  ourselves  to  the  Pastor  of  Hennas,  and  find  the 
Church  a  woman ;  to  St.  Methodius,  and  find  Virtue  a  ' 
woman;  and  to  St.  Gregory’s  poem,  and  find  Virginity 


in  Her  Exaltation. 


67 


again  a  woman.  Scripture  deals  with  types  rather  than 
personifications.  Israel  stands  for  the  chosen  people, 
David  for  Christ,  Jerusalem  for  heaven.  Consider  the 
remarkable  representations,  dramatic  I  may  call  them, 
in  Jeremiah,  Ezechiel,  and  Hosea  :  predictions,  threat- 
enings,  and  promises  are  acted  out  by  those  Prophets. 
Ezechiel  is  commanded  to  shave  his  head,  and  to  divide 
and  scatter  his  hair ;  and  Ahias  tears  his  garment,  and 
gives  ten  out  of  twelve  parts  of  it  to  Jeroboam.  So  too 
the  structure  of  the  imagery  in  the  Apocalypse  is  not  a 
mere  allegorical  creation,  but  is  founded  on  the  Jewish 
ritual.  In  like  manner  our  Eord’s  bodily  cures  are 
visible  types  of  the  power  of  His  grace  upon  the  soul ; 
and  His  prophecy  of  the  last  day  is  conveyed  under 
that  of  the  fall  of  Jerusalem.  Even  His  parables  are  not 
simply  ideal,  but  relations  of  occurrences,  which  did  or 
might  take  place,  under  which  was  conveyed  a  spiritual 
meaning.  The  description  of  Wisdom  in  the  Proverbs 
and  other  sacred  books  has  brought  out  the  instinct  of 
commentators  in  this  respect.  They  felt  that  Wisdom 
could  not  be  a  mere  personification,  and  they  deter¬ 
mined  that  it  was  our  Eord  ;  and  the  later-written  of 
these  books,  by  their  own  more  definite  language, 
warranted  that  interpretation.  Then,  when  it  was 
found  that  the  Arians  used  it  in  derogation  of  our 
Eord’s  divinity,  still,  unable  to  tolerate  the  notion  of  a 
mere  allegory,  commentators  applied  the  description  to 
the  Blessed  Virgin.  Coming  back  then  to  the  Apoca¬ 
lyptic  vision,  I  ask,  If  the  Woman  ought  to  be  some 
real  person,  who  can  it  be  whom  the  Apostle  saw,  and 
intends,  and  delineates  but  that  same  Great  Mother  to 
whom  the  chapters  in  the  Proverbs  are  accommodated  ? 
And  let  it  be  observed,  moreover,  that  in  this  passage, 
from  the  allusion  made  in  it  to  the  history  of  the  fall, 
Mary  may  be  said  still  to  be  represented  under  the 


i/ 


68 


Belief  of  Catholics  in  Her  Exaltation. 


character  of  the  second  Eve.  I  make  a  farther  remark  : 
it  is  sometimes  asked,  Why  do  not  the  sacred  writers 
mention  our  Lady’s  greatness?  I  answer,  she  was,  or 
may  have  been,  alive  when  the  Apostles  and  Evangel¬ 
ists  wrote  ;  there  was  just  one  book  of  Scripture  cer¬ 
tainly  written  after  her  death,  and  that  book  does  (so  to 
say)  canonize  and  crown  her. 

But  if  all  this  be  so,  if  it  is  really  the  Blessed  Virgin 
whom  Scripture  represents  as  clothed  with  the  sun, 
crowned  with  the  stars  of  heaven,  and  with  the  moon 
as  her  footstool,  what  height  of  glory  may  we  not  at¬ 
tribute  to  her  ?  And  what  are  we  to  say  of  those  who, 
through  ignorance,  run  counter  to  the  voice  of  Scrip¬ 
ture,  to  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers,  to  the  traditions 
of  East  and  West,  and  speak  and  act  contemptuously 
towards  her  whom  her  Lord  delighteth  to  honor  ? 


CHAPTER  VII. 


THE  MOTHER  OF  JESUS  IS  THE  MOTHER 

OF  GOD. 


The  Title  of  “  Theotocos  ”  among  the  Greek  Fathers. — 
Used  by  the  General  Council  of  Ephesus  to  ex¬ 
press  the  Divinity  of  Christ. — Universally  used  in 

THE  ANCIENT  CHURCH. — QUOTATIONS  FROM  MANY 

Fathers  of  both  West  and  East. 

"V  OW  I  have  said  all  I  mean  to  say  on  what  I  have 
called  the  rudimental  teaching  of  Antiquity  about 
the  Blessed  Virgin ;  but  after  all  I  have  not  insisted 
on  the  highest  view  of  her  prerogatives,  which  the 
Fathers  have  taught  us.  You,  my  dear  friend,  who 
know  so  well  the  ancient  controversies  and  Councils, 
may  have  been  surprised  why  I  should  not  have  yet 
spoken  of  her  as  the  Theotocos  ;  but  I  wished  to  show 
on  how  broad  a  basis  her  dignity  rests,  independent  of 
that  wonderful  title ;  and  again  I  have  been  loath  to  en¬ 
large  upon  the  force  of  a  word,  which  is  rather  matter 
for  devotional  thought  than  for  polemical  dispute. 
However,  1  might  as  well  not  write  to  you  at  all,  as 
altogether  be  silent  upon  it. 

It  is  then  an  integral  portion  of  the  Faith  fixed  by 
Ecumenical  Council,  a  portion  of  it  which  you  hold  as 
well  as  I,  that  the  Blessed  Virgin  is  Theotocos,  Deipara, 
or  Mother  of  God  ;  and  this  word,  when  thus  used, 
carries  with  it  no  admixture  of  rhetoric,  no  taint  of 

<39 


70 


Belief  of  Catholics 


extravagant  affection ;  it  has  nothing  else  but  a  well- 
weighed,  grave,  dogmatic  sense,  which  corresponds  and 
is  adequate  to  its  sound.  It  intends  to  express  that 
God  is  her  Son,  as  truly  as  any  one  of  us  is  the  son  of 
his  own  mother.  If  this  be  so,  what  can  be  said  of  any 
creature  whatever,  which  may  not  be  said  of  her? 
what  can  be  said  too  much,  so  that  it  does  not  com¬ 
promise  the  attributes  of  the  Creator?  He  indeed 
might  have  created  a  being  more  perfect,  more  ad¬ 
mirable,  than  she  is ;  He  might  have  endued  that 
being,  so  created,  with  a  richer  grant  of  grace,  of 
power,  of  blessedness :  but  in  one  respect  she  surpasses 
all  even  possible  creations,  viz.,  that  she  is  the  Mother 
of  her  Creator.  It  is  this  awful  title,  which  both  illus¬ 
trates  and  connects  together  the  two  prerogatives  of 
Mary,  on  which  I  have  been  lately  enlarging,  her 
sanctity  and  her  greatness.  It  is  the  issue  of  her 
sanctity  ;  it  is  the  origin  of  her  greatness.  What  dig¬ 
nity  can  be  too  great  to  attribute  to  her  who  is  as  closely 
bound  up,  as  intimately  one,  with  the  Eternal  Word,  as 
a  mother  is  with  a  son  ?  What  outfit  of  sanctity,  what 
fulness  and  redundance  of  grace,  what  exuberance  of 
merits  must  have  been  hers,  when  once  we  admit  the 
supposition,  which  the  Fathers  justify,  that  her  Maker 
really  did  regard  those  merits,  and  take  them  into 
account,  when  He  condescended  “  not  to  abhor  the 
Virgin’s  womb  ?  ”  Is  it  surprising  then  that  on  the  one 
hand  she  should  be  immaculate  in  her  Conception  ? 
or  on  the  other  that  she  should  be  honored  with  an 
Assumption,  and  exalted  as  a ‘queen  with  a  crown  of 
twelve  stars,  with  the  rulers  of  day  and  night  to  do  her 
service?  Men  sometimes  wonder  that  we  call  her 
Mother  of  life,  of  mercy,  of  salvation  ;  what  are  all 
these  titles  compared  to  that  one  name,  Mother  of  God  ? 

I  shall  say  no  more  about  this  title  here.  It  is 


that  She  is  the  Theotocos. 


7 1 


scarcely  possible  to  write  of  it  without  diverging  into  a 
style  of  composition  unsuited  to  a  letter  ;  so  I  will  but 
refer  to  the  history  and  to  instances  of  its  use. 

The  title  of  Theotocos  *  as  ascribed  to  the  Blessed 
Mary,  begins  with  ecclesiastical  writers  of  a  date  hardly 
later  than  that  at  which  wTe  read  of  her  as  the  second 
Eve.  It  first  occurs  in  the  works  cf  Origen  (185-254)  ; 
but  he,  witnessing  for  Egypt  and  Palestine,  witnesses 
also  that  it  was  in  use  before  his  time ;  for,  as  Socrates 
informs  us,  he  “  interpreted  how  it  was  to  be  used,  and 
discussed  the  question  at  length”  (Hist.,  vii.  32). 
Within  two  centuries  of  his  time  (431),  in  the  General 
Council  held  against  Nestorius,  it  was  made  part  of 
the  formal  dogmatic  teaching  of  the  Church.  At  that 
time,  Theodoret,  who  from  his  party  connections  might 
have  been  supposed  disinclined  to  its  solemn  recog¬ 
nition,  owned  that  “the  ancient  and  more  than  ancient 
heralds  of  the  orthodox  faith  taught  the  use  of  the 
term  according  to  the  Apostolic  tradition.”  At  the 
same  date  John  of  Antioch,  the  temporary  protector  of 
Nestorius,  whose  heresy  lay  in  the  rejection  of  the 
term,  said  :  “This  title  no  ecclesiastical  teacher  has  put 
aside.  Those  who  have  used  it,  are  many  and  eminent; 
and  those  who  have  not  used  it,  have  not  attacked 
those  who  did.”  Alexander  again,  one  of  the  fiercest 
partisans  of  Nestorius,  witnesses  to  the  use  of  the  word, 
though  he  considers  it  dangerous:  “That  in  festive 
solemnities,”  he  says,  “or  in  preaching  or  teaching, 
theotocos  should  be  unguardedly  said  by  the  orthodox 
without  explanation  is  no  blame,  because  such  state¬ 
ments  were  not  dogmatic,  nor  said  with  evil  meaning.” 
If  we  look  for  those  Fathers,  in  the  interval  between 
Origen  and  the  Council,  to  whom  Alexander  refers  as 

*  Vid.  Oxford  Translation  of  St.  Athanasius,  pp.  420,  440,  447;  and 
Essay  on  Doct.  Development,  pp.  407-409. 


72 


Belief  of  Catholics 


using  tlie  term,  we  find  among  them  no  less  names 
than  Archelaus  of  Mesopotamia,  Eusebius  of  Palestine, 
Alexander  of  Egypt,  in  the  third  century ;  in  the 
fourth,  Athanasius,  who  uses  it  many  times  with 
emphasis;  Cyril  of  Palestine,  Gregory  Nyssen  and 
Gregory  Nazianzen  of  Cappadocia,  Antiochus  of  Syria, 
and  Ammonius  of  Thrace  :  not  to  refer  to  the  Em¬ 
peror  Julian,  who,  having  no  local  or  ecclesiastical 
domicile,  is  a  witness  for  the  whole  of  Christendom. 
Another  and  earlier  Emperor,  Constantine,  in  his  speech 
before  the  assembled  Bishops  at  Nicsea,  uses  the  still 
more  explicit  title  of  “  the  Virgin  Mother  of  God”; 
which  is  also  used  by  Ambrose  of  Milan,  and  by 
Vincent  and  Cassian  in  the  south  of  France,  and  then 
by  St.  Eeo. 

So  much  for  the  term ;  it  would  be  tedious  to  produce 
the  passages  of  authors  who,  using  or  not  using  the 
term,  convey  the  idea.  “  Our  God  was  carried  in  the 
womb  of  Mary,”  says  Ignatius,  who  was  martyred  a.d. 
106.  “The  Word  of  God,”  says  Hippolytus,  “was 
carried  in  that  Virgin  frame.”  “The  Maker  of  all,” 
says  Ampliilochius,  “is  born  of  a  Virgin.”  “She 
did  compass  without  circumscribing  the  Sun  of  justice 
— the  Everlasting  is  born,”  says  Chrysostom.  “God 
dwelt  in  the  womb,”  says  Proclus.  “  When  thou  hear- 
est  that  God  speaks  from  the  bush,”  asks  Theodotus,' 
“in  the  bush  seest  thou  not  the  Virgin?”  Cassian 
sa}rs,  “  Mary  bore  her  Author.”  “  The  One  God  only- 
begotten,”  says  Hilary,  “  is  introduced  into  the  womb 
of  a  Virgin.”  “The  Everlasting,”  says  Ambrose, 
“came  into  the  Virgin.”  “The  closed  gate,”  says 
Jerome,  “  by  which  alone  the  Lord  God  of  Israel  enters, 
is  the  Virgin  Mary.”  “  That  man  from  heaven,”  says 
Capriolus,  “  is  God  conceived  in  the  womb.”  “He  is 
made  in  thee,”  says  St.  Augustine,  “  who  made  thee.” 


that  She  is  the  Theotocos. 


7  3 


This  being  the  faith  of  the  Fathers  about  the  Blessed 
Virgin,  we  need  not  wonder  that  it  should  in  no  long 
time  be  transmuted  into  devotion.  No  wonder  if  their 
language  should  become  unmeasured,  when  so  great  a 
term  as  ‘  ‘  Mother  of  God  ’  ’  had  been  formally  set  down 
as  the  safe  limit  of  it.  No  wTonder  if  it  should  be 
.stronger  and  stronger  as  time  went  on,  since  only  in  a 
long  period  could  the  fulness  of  its  import  be  exhausted. 
And  in  matter  of  fact,  and  as  might  be  anticipated 
(with  the  few  exceptions  which  I  have  noted  above,  and 
which  I  am  to  treat  of  below) ,  the  current  of  thought 
in  those  early  ages  did  uniformly  tend  to  make  much 
of  the  Blessed  Virgin  and  to  increase  her  honors,  not  to 
circumscribe  them.  Little  jealousy  was  shown  of  her  in 
those  times ;  but,  when  any  such  niggardness  of  affec¬ 
tion  occurred,  then  one  Father  or  other  fell  upon  the 
offender,  with  zeal,  not  to  say  with  fierceness.  Thus 
St.  Jerome  inveighs  against  Helvidius ;  thus  St. 
Epiphanius  denounces  Apollinaris,  St.  Cyril  Nestorius, 
and  St.  Ambrose  Bonosus ;  on  the  other  hand,  each 
successive  insult  offered  to  her  by  individual  adversaries 
did  but  bring  out  more  fully  the  intimate  sacred  affec¬ 
tion  with  which  Christendom  regarded  her.  “  She  was 
alone,  and  wrought  the  world’s  salvation  and  conceived 
the  redemption  of  all,”  says  Ambrose  ;  *  “  she  had  so 
great  grace,  as  not  only  to  preserve  virginity  herself, 
but  to  confer  it  on  those  whom  she  visited.”  “  She  is 
the  rod  out  of  the  stem  of  Jesse,”  says  St.  Jerome, 
“  and  the  Eastern  gate  through  which  the  High-Priest 
alone  goes  in  and  out,  which  still  is  ever  shut.”  “  She 
is  the  wise  woman,”  says  Nilus,  who  “hath  clad  be¬ 
lievers,  from  the  fleece  of  the  Lamb  born  of  her,  with 
the  clothing  of  incorruption,  and  delivered  them  from 
their  spiritual  nakedness.”  “  She  is  the  mother  of  lire, 

*  Essay  on  Doctr.  Dev.,  ubi supr. 


74  Belief  of  Catholics  that  She  is  the  Tlieotocos. 


of  beauty,  of  majesty,  the  morning  star,”  according 
to  Antiochus.  “The  mystical  new  heavens,”  “the 
heavens  carrying  the  Divinity,”  “the  fruitful  vine,” 
“by  whom  we  are  translated  from  death  unto  life,” 
according  to  St.  Ephrem.  “The  manna,  which  is 
delicate,  bright,  sweet,  and  virgin,  which,  as  though 
coming  from  heaven ,  has  poured  down  on  all  the  people 
of  the  Churches  a  food  pleasanter  than  honey,”  accord¬ 
ing  to  St.  Maximus. 

Basil  of  Seleucia  says,  that  “she  shines  out  above 
all  the  martyrs  as  the  sun  above  the  stars,  and  that  she 
mediates  between  God  and  men.”  “  Run  through  all 
creation  in  your  thought,”  says  Proclus,  “and  see  if 
there  be  one  equal  or  superior  to  the  Holy  Virgin, 
Mother  of  God.”  “  Hail,  Mother,  clad  in  light,  of  the 
light  which  sets  not,”  says  Theodotus,  or  some  one  else 
at  Ephesus;  “hail,  all  undefiled  mother  of  holiness ; 
hail,  most  pellucid  fountain  of  the  life-giving  stream.” 
And  St.  Cyril  too  at  Ephesus,  “  Hail,  Mary,  Mother  of 
God,  majestic  common- treasure  of  the  whole  world,  the 
lamp  unquenchable,  the  crown  of  virginity,  the  sceptre 
of  orthodoxy,  the  indissoluble  temple,  the  dwelling  of 
the  Illimitable,  Mother  and  Virgin,  through  whom  He 
in  the  holy  gospels  is  called  blessed  who  eometh  in  the 
name  of  the  Eord,  .  .  through  whom  the  Holy 

Trinity  is  sanctified,  .  .  through  whom  Angels  and 

Archangels. rejoice,  devils  are  put  to  flight,  .  .  and 

the  fallen  creature  is  received  up  into  the  heavens,  etc., 
etc.”*  Such  is  but  a  portion  of  the  panegyrical  lan¬ 
guage  which  St.  Cyril  used  in  the  third  Ecumenical 
Council. 


*Opp.,  t.  6,  p.  355. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


MARY’S  INTERCESSORY  POWER. 


Union  in  Intercessory  Prayer  among  the  Living  is  a 
vital  Characteristic  of  the  Christian  Church. — 
Is  THIS  SPIRITUAL  BOND  TO  CEASE  WITH  LIFE  ? — SCRIP¬ 
TURE  and  Christian  Aniiquity  answer  in  the 
Negative. — The  Vital  Force  of  Intercession  is 
Sanctity. — Proved  by  many  Scripture  Texts. — The 
Mother  of  Jesus  being  the  holiest  of  Creatures 
is  the  foremost  of  Intercessors  with  Christ. — 
Growth  of  Devotion  to  Mary  in  proportion  to 

REALIZATION  IN  THE  CHURCH  OF  HER  DIGNITY  AND 

Sanctity. — The  miraculous  Creed  of  St.  Gregory 
Thaumaturgus. — Special  Value  in  this  Age  of  the 

REVEALED  DOCTRINE  AND  EVENTS  IN  WHICH  MARY 
HAS  A  PART,  AND  OF  HER  INTERCESSION. 

I  MUST  not  close  my  review  of  the  Catholic  doctrine 
concerning  the  Blessed  Virgin  without  directly 
speaking  of  her  intercessory  power,  though  I  have  inci-* 
dentally  made  mention  of  it  already.  It  is  the  immedi¬ 
ate  result  of  two  truths,  neither  of  which  you  dispute; 
first,  that  “it  is  good  and  useful,”  as  the  Council  of 
Trent  says,  “  suppliantly  to  invoke  the  Saints  and  to 
have  recourse  to  their  prayers  ’  ’  ;  and  secondly,  that  the 
Blessed  Mary  is  singularly  dear  to  her  Son  and  singu¬ 
larly  exalted  in  sanctity  and  glory.  However,  at  the 
risk  of  becoming  didactic,  I  will  state  somewhat  more 
fully  the  grounds  on  which  it  rests. 

75 


76 


Belief  of  Catholics 


To  a  candid  pagan  it  must  have  been  one  of  the  most 
remarkable  points  of  Christianity,  on  its  first  appear¬ 
ance,  that  the  observance  of  prayer  formed  so  vital  a 
part  of  its  organization ;  and  that,  though  its  members 
were  scattered  all  over  the  world,  and  its  rulers  and 
subjects  had  so  little  opportunity  of  correlative  action, 
yet  they,  one  and  all,  found  the  solace  of  a  spiritual 
intercourse  and  a  real  bond  of  union  in  the  practice  of 
mutual  intercession.  Prayer  indeed  is  the  very  essence 
of  all  religion ;  but  in  the  heathen  religions  it  was 
either  public  or  personal  ;  it  was  a  state  ordinance,  or  a 
selfish  expedient  for  the  attainment  of  certain  tangible, 
temporal  goods.  Very  different  from  this  was  its  exer¬ 
cise  among  Christians,  who  were  thereby  knit  together 
in  one  body,  different,  as  they  vrere,  in  races,  ranks, 
and  habits,  distant  from  each  other  in  country,  and 
helpless  amid  hostile  populations.  Yet  it  proved  suffi¬ 
cient  for  its  purpose.  Christians  could  not  correspond  ; 
they  could  not  combine ;  but  they  could  pray  one  for 
another.  Even  their  public  prayers  partook  of  this 
character  of  intercession  ;  for  to  pray  for  the  welfare  of 
the  whole  Church  was  in  fact  a  prayer  for  all  the  classes 
of  men  and  all  the  individuals  of  which  it  was  com¬ 
posed.  It  was  in  prayer  that  the  Church  was  founded. 
For  ten  days  all  the  Apostles  “  persevered  with  one  mind 
in  prayer  and  supplication,  with  the  women,  and  Mary 
the  Mother  of  Jesus,  and  with  his  brethren.”  Then 
again  at  Pentecost  “  they  were  all  with  one  mind  in  one 
place”  ;  and  the  converts  then  made  are  said  to  have 
‘‘persevered  in  prayer.”  And  when,  after  a  while,  St. 
Peter  was  seized  and  put  in  prison  with  a  view  to  his 
being  put  to  death,  ‘‘prayer  was  made  without  ceas¬ 
ing  ’  ’  by  the  Church  of  God  for  him ;  and,  when  the 
Angel  released  him,  he  took  refuge  in  a  house  ‘‘where 
many  were  gathered  together  in  prayer,” 


in  Her  Intercessory  Power. 


77 


We  are  so  accustomed  to  these  passages  as  hardly  to 
be  able  to  do  justice  to  their  singular  significance  ;  and 
they  are  followed  up  by  various  passages  of  the  Apos¬ 
tolic  Epistles.  St.  Paul  enjoins  his  brethren  to  “pray 
with  all  prayer  and  supplication  at  all  times  in  the 
Spirit,  with  all  instance  and  supplication  for  all  saints,” 
to  “pray  in  every  place,”  “to  make  supplication, 
prayers,  intercessions,  giving  of  thanks,  for  all  men.” 
And  in  his  own  person  he  ‘  ‘  ceases  not  to  give  thanks 
for  them,  commemorating  them  in  his  prayers,”  and 
‘  ‘  always  in  all  his  prayers  making  supplication  for 
them  all  with  joy.” 

Now,  was  this  spiritual  bond  to  cease  with  life  ?  or 
had  Christians  similar  duties  to  their  brethren  de¬ 
parted?  From  the  witness  of  the  early  ages  of  the 
Church,  it  appears  that  they  had ;  and  you,  and  those 
who  agree  with  you,  would  be  the  last  to  deny  that 
they  were  then  in  the  practice  of  praying,  as  for  the  liv¬ 
ing,  so  for  those  also  who  had  passed  into  the  interme¬ 
diate  state  between  earth  and  heaven.  Did  the  sacred 
communion  extend  further  still,  on  to  the  inhabitants 
of  heaven  itself?  Here  too  you  agree  with  us,  for  you 
have  adopted  in  your  volume  the  words  of  the  Council 
of  Trent  which  I  have  quoted  above.  But  now  we  are 
brought  to  a  higher  order  of  thought. 

It  would  be  preposterous  to  pray  for  those  who  are 
already  in  glory  ;  but  at  least  they  can  pray  for  us,  and 
we  can  ask  their  prayers,  and  in  the  Apocalypse  at 
least  Angels  are  introduced  both  sending  us  their  bless¬ 
ing  and  offering  up  our  prayers  before  the  Divine 
Presence.  We  read  there  of  an  angel  who  “  came  and 
stood  before  the  altar,  having  a  golden  censer  ’  ’  ;  and 
“  there  was  given  to  him  much  incense,  that  he  should 
offer  of  the  prayers  of  all  saints  upon  the  golden  altar 
which  is  before  the  Throne  of  God.”  On  this  occasion, 


Belief  of  Catholics 


78 

surely  the  Angel  performed  the  part  of  a  great  Interces¬ 
sor  or  Mediator  above  for  the  children  of  the  Church 
Militant  below.  Again,  in  the  beginning  of  the  same 
book,  the  sacred  writer  goes  so  far  as  to  speak  of 
“grace  and  peace”  coming  to  us,  not  only  from  the 
Almighty,  “but  from  the  seven  Spirits  that  are  before 
His  throne,”  thus  associating  the  Eternal  with  the 
ministers  of  His  mercies ;  and  this  carries  us  on  to  the 
remarkable  passage  of  St.  Justin,  one  of  the  earliest 
Fathers,  who,  in  his  Apology,  says,  “To  Him  (God), 
and  His  Son  who  came  from  Him  and  taught  us  these 
things,  and  the  host  of  the  other  good  Angels  who  fol¬ 
low  and  resemble  Him,  and  the  Prophetic  Spirit,  we 
pay  veneration  and  homage.”  Further,  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  St.  Paul  introduces,  not  only  Angels, 
but  “the  spirits  of  the  just”  into  the  sacred  com¬ 
munion:  “Ye  have  come  to  Mount  Zion,  to  the  hea¬ 
venly  Jerusalem,  to  myriads  of  angels,  to  God  the  Judge 
of  all,  to  the  spirits  of  the  just  made  perfect,  and  to 
Jesus  the  Mediator  of  the  New  Testament.”  What 
can  be  meant  by  having  ‘  ‘  come  to  the  spirits  of  the 
just,”  unless  in  some  way  or  other  they  do  us  good, 
whether  by  blessing  or  by  aiding  us  ? — that  is,  in  a  word, 
to  speak  correctly,  by  praying  for  us,  for  it  is  surely  by 
prayer  that  the  creature  above  is  able  to  bless  and  aid 
the  creature  below. 

Intercession  thus  being  a  first  principle  of  the 
Church’s  life,  next  it  is  certain  again,  that  the  vital 
force  of  that  intercession,  as  an  availing  power,  is 
(according  to  the  will  of  God)  sanctity.  This  seems 
to  be  suggested  by  a  passage  of  St.  Paul,  in  which  the 
Supreme  Intercessor  is  said  to  be  “the  Spirit” — “the 
Spirit  Himself  maketh  intercession  for  us  ;  He  maketh 
intercession  for  the  saints  according  to  God.”  And, 
indeed,  the  truth  thus  implied  is  expressly  brought  out 


in  Her  Intercessory  Power . 


79 


for  us  in  other  parts  of  Scripture,  in  the  form  both  of 
doctrine  and  of  example.  The  words  of  the  man  born 
blind  speak  the  common-sense  of  nature  :  “if  any  man 
be  a  worshipper  of  God,  him  He  heareth.”  And  Apos¬ 
tles  confirm  them  :  “  the  prayer  of  a  just  man  availeth 
much,”  and  “  whatever  we  ask,  we  receive,  because  we 
keep  his  commandments.”  Then,  as  for  examples,  we 
read  of  the  Almighty’s  revealing  to  Abraham  and 
Moses  beforehand  His  purposes  of  wrath,  in  order  that 
they  by  their  intercessions  might  avert  its  execution. 
To  the  friends  of  Job  it  was  said,  “My  servant  Job 
shall  pray  for  you;  his  face  I  will  accept.”  Klias  by 
his  prayer  shut  and  opened  the  heavens.  Elsewhere 
we  read  of“Jeremias,  Moses,  and  Samuel”;  and  of 
“Noe,  Daniel,  and  Job,”  as  being  great  mediators  be¬ 
tween  God  and  His  people.  One  instance  is  given  us, 
which  testifies  the  continuance  of  this  high  office 
beyond  this  life.  Eazarus,  in  the  parable,  is  seen  in 
Abraham’s  bosom.  It  is  usual  to  pass  over  this  strik¬ 
ing  passage  with  the  remark  that  it  is  a  Jewish  mode  of 
speech  ;  whereas,  Jewish  belief  or  not,  it  is  recognized 
and  sanctioned  by  our  Lord  Himself.  What  do  Catho¬ 
lics  teach  about  the  Blessed  Virgin  more  wonderful 
than  this  ?  If  Abraham,  not  yet  ascended  on  high,  had 
charge  of  Lazarus,  what  offence  is  it  to  affirm  the  like 
of  her,  who  was  not  merely  as  Abraham,  “  the  friend,” 
but  was  the  very  ‘  ‘  Mother  of  God  ’  ’  ? 

It  may  be  added,  that,  though,  if  sanctity  was  want¬ 
ing,  it  availed  nothing  for  influence  with  our  Lord  to 
be  one  of  His  company,  still,  as  the  Gospel  shows,  He 
on  various  occasions  actually  did  allow  those  who  were 
near  Him  to  be  the  channels  of  introducing  supplicants 
to  Him  or  of  gaining  miracles  from  Him,  as  in  the  in¬ 
stance  of  the  miracle  of  the  loaves  ;  and  if  on  one  occa¬ 
sion  He  seems  to  repel  His  Mother,  when  she  told  Him 


8o 


Belief  of  Catholics 


that  wine  was  wanting  for  the  guests  at  the  marriage 
feast,  it  is  obvious  to  remark  on  it,  that,  by  saying  that 
she  was  then  separated  from  Him  (“  What  have  I  to  do 
with  thee?”)  because  His  hour  was  not  yet  come,  He 
implied,  that  when  that  hour  was  come,  such  separation 
would  be  at  an  end.  Moreover,  in  fact  He  did  at  her 
intercession  work  the  miracle  to  which  ner  words  pointed. 

I  consider  it  impossible  then,  for  those  who  believe 
the  Church  to  be  one  vast  body  in  heaven  and  on  earth, 
in  which  every  holy  creature  of  God  has  his  place,  and 
of  which  prayer  is  the  life,  when  once  they  recognize 
the  sanctity  and  dignity  of  the  Blessed  Virgin,  not  to 
perceive  immediately,  that  her  office  above  is  one  of 
perpetual  intercession  for  the  faithful  militant,  and  that 
our  very  relation  to  her  must  be  that  of  clients  to  a 
patron,  and  that,  in  the  eternal  enmity  which  exists 
between  the  woman  and  the  serpent,  while  the  serpent’s 
strength  lies  in  being  the  Tempter,  the  weapon  of  the 
Second  Eve  and  Mother  of  God  is  prayer. 

As  then  these  ideas  of  her  sanctity  and  dignity 
gradually  penetrated  the  mind  of  Christendom,  so  did 
that  of  her  intercessory  power  follow  close  upon  them 
and  with  them.  From  the  earliest  times  that  mediation 
is  symbolized  in  those  representations  of  her  with  up¬ 
lifted  hands,  which,  whether  in  plaster  or  in  glass,  are 
still  extant  in  Rome,  that  Church,  as  St.  Irenseus  says, 
with  which  “every  Church,  that  is,  the  faithful  from 
every  side,  must  agree,  because  of  its  more  powerful 
principality”  ;  “  into  which,”  as  Tertullian  adds,  “the 
Apostles  poured  out,  together  with  their  blood,  their 
whole  doctrine.”  As  far  indeed  as  existing  documents 
are  concerned,  I  know  of  no  instance  to  my  purpose 
earlier  than  a.d.  234,  but  it  is  a  very  remarkable  one; 
and,  though  it* has  been  often  quoted  in  the  controversy, 
an  argument  is  not  weaker  for  frequent  use. 


in  Her  Intercessory  Power . 


81 


St.  Gregory  Nyssen,*  then,  a  native  of  Cappadocia  in 
the  fourth  century,  relates  that  his  namesake,  Bishop 
of  Neo-Caesarea  in  Pontus,  surnamed  Thaumaturgus,  in 
the  century  preceding,  shortly  before  he  was  called  to 
the  priesthood,  received  in  a  vision  a  Creed,  which  is 
still  extant,  from  the  Blessed  Mary  at  the  hands  of  St. 
John.  The  account  runs  thus  :  He  was  deeply  ponder¬ 
ing  theological  doctrine,  which  the  heretics  of  the  day 
depraved.  “  In  such  thoughts,”  says  his  namesake  of 
Nyssa,  “  he  was  passing  the  night,  when  one  appeared, 
as  if  in  human  form,  aged  in  appearance,  saintly  in  the 
fashion  of  his  garments,  and  very  venerable  both  in 
grace  of  countenance  and  general  mien.  Amazed  at  the 
sight,  he  started  from  his  bed,  and  asked  who  it  was, 
and  why  he  came  ;  but,  on  the  other  calming  the  per¬ 
turbation  of  his  mind  with  his  gentle  voice,  and  saying 
he  had  appeared  to  him  by  divine  command  on  account 
of  his  doubts,  in  order  that  the  truth  of  the  orthodox 
faith  might  be  revealed  to  him,  he  took  courage  at  the 
word,  and  regarded  him  with  a  mixture  of  joy  and 
fright.  Then,  on  his  stretching  his  hand  straight  for¬ 
ward  and  pointing  with  his  fingers  at  something  on  one 
side,  he  followed  with  his  eyes  the  extended  hand,  and 
saw  another  appearance  opposite  to  the  former,  in  shape 
of  a  woman,  but  more  than  human.  .  .  .  When 

his  eyes  could  not  bear  the  apparition,  he  heard  them 
conversing  together  on  the  subject  of  his  doubts ;  and 
thereby  not  only  gained  a  true  knowledge  of  the  faith, 
but  learned  their  names  as  they  addressed  each  other 
by  their  respective  appellations.  And  thus  he  is  said  to 
have  heard  the  person  in  woman’s  shape  bid  ‘John  the 
Evangelist  ’  disclose  to  the  young  man  the  mystery  of 
godliness  ;  and  he  answered  that  he  was  ready  to  com¬ 
ply  in  this  matter  with  the  wish  of  ‘  the  Mother  of  the 

*  Vtd.  Essay  on  Doctr.  Dev.,  p.  386. 


82  Belief  of  Catholics  in  Her  Intercessory  Power. 


Lord,’  and  enunciated  a  formulary,  well-turned  and 
complete,  and  so  vanished.  He,  on  the  other  hand, 
immediately  committed  to  writing  that  divine  teaching 
of  his  mystagogue,  and  henceforth  preached  in  the 
Church  according  to  that  form,  and  bequeathed  to 
posterity,  as  an  inheritance,  that  heavenly  teaching,  by 
means  of  which  his  people  are  instructed  down  to  this 
day,  being  preserved  from  all  heretical  evil.”  He  pro¬ 
ceeds  to  rehearse  the  Creed  thus  given,  “  There  is  One 
God,  Father  of  a  Living  Word,”  etc.  Bull,  after 
quoting  it  in  his  work  on  the  Nicene  Faith,  alludes  to 
this  history  of  its  origin,  and  adds,  ‘‘No  one  should 
think  it  incredible  that  such  a  providence  should  befall 
a  man  whose  whole  life  was  conspicuous  for  revelations 
and  miracles,  as  all  ecclesiastical  writers  who  have 
mentioned  him  (and  who  has  not?)  witness  with  one 
voice.” 

Here  our  Lady  is  represented  as  rescuing  a  holy  soul 
from  intellectual  error.  This  leads  me  to  a  further 
reflection.  You  seem,  in  one  place  of  your  volume,  to 
object  to  the  Antiphon  in  which  it  is  said  of  her  “  All 
heresies  thou  hast  destroyed  alone.”  Surely  the  truth 
of  it  is  verified  in  this  age,  as  in  former  times,  and 
especially  by  the  doctrine  concerning  her  on  which  I 
have  been  dwelling.  She  is  the  great  exemplar  of 
prayer  in  a  generation  which  emphatically  denies  the 
power  of  prayer  in  toto ,  which  determines  that  fatal 
laws  govern  the  universe,  that  there  cannot  be  any 
direct  communication  between  earth  and  heaven,  that 
God  cannot  visit  His  own  earth,  and  that  man  cannot 
influence  His  providence. 


CHAPTER  IX. 


BELIEF  OF  CATHOLICS  AS  COLORED  BY 
THEIR  DEVOTION. 


Rule  to  be  followed  in  criticising  Devotional  Prac- 
tices. — Not  to  be  held  to  abstract  Rules  of 
Propriety  any  more  than  Love  Letters.—"  The 
Religion  of  the  Multitude  is  ever  Vulgar  and 
Abnormal.” — Logic  is  overtaxed  in  trying  to  fol¬ 
low  AND  CONTROL  DEVOTIONAL  INSTINCTS. — CONTRAST 

between  Jesus  and  Mary  as  Centres  of  Devotion¬ 
al  Attraction. — The  Cause  of  Devotion  to  Mary 
is  God’s  Act  in  making  Her  the  Mother  of  the 
Incarnate  Word. — Influence  of  the  Arian  Con¬ 
troversy  on  Devotion  to  Mary. 

I  CANNOT  help  hoping  that  your  own  reading  of  the 
Fathers  will  on  the  whole  bear  me  out  in  the  above 
account  of  their  teaching  concerning  the  Blessed  Virgin. 
Anglicans  seem  to  me  simply  to  overlook  the  strength 
of  the  argument  adducible  from  the  works  of  those 
anoient  doctors  in  our  favor;  and  they  open  the  attack 
upon  our  mediaeval  and  modern  writers,  careless  of 
leaving  a  host  of  primitive  opponents  in  their  rear.  I 
do  not  include  you  among  such  Anglicans,  as  you  know 
what  the  Fathers  assert ;  but,  if  so,  have  you  not,  my 
dear  friend,  been  unjust  to  yourself  in  your  recent 
volume,  and  made  far  too  much  of  the  differences 
which  exist  between  Anglicans  and  us  on  this  particu¬ 
lar  point?  It  is  the  office  of  an  Irenicon  to  smooth 
difficulties  ;  I  shall  be  pleased  if  I  succeed  in  removing 

some  of  yours.  Let  the  public  judge  between  us  here. 

83 


84  Belief  of  Catholics  about  the  Blessed  Virgin 


Had  you  happened  in  your  volume  to  introduce  your 
notice  of  our  teaching  about  the  Blessed  Virgin,  with  a 
notice  of  the  teaching  of  the  Fathers  concerning  her, 
which  you  follow,  ordinary  men  would  have  considered 
that  there  was  not  much  to  choose  between  you  and  us. 
Though  you  appealed  ever  so  much,  in  your  defence,  to 
the  authority  of  the  “undivided  Church,”  they  would 
have  said  that  you,  who  had  such  high  notions  of  the 
Blessed  Mary,  were  one  of  the  last  men  who  had  a  right 
to  acct  se  us  of  quasi-idolatry.  When  they  found  you 
with  tl  e  Fathers  calling  her  Mother  of  God,  Second 
Eve,  a  ad  Mother  of  all  Eiving,  the  Mother  of  Life,  the 
Morning  Star,  the  Mystical  New  Heaven,  the  Sceptre 
of  Orthodoxy,  the  All-undefiled  Mother  of  Holiness, 
and  the  like,  they  would  have  deemed  it  a  poor  com¬ 
pensation  for  such  language,  that  you  protested  against 
her  being  called  a  Co-redemptress  or  a  Priestess.  And, 
if  the/  were  violent  Protestants,  they  would  not  have 
read  you  with  the  relish  and  gratitude  with  which,  as 
it  is,  they  have  perhaps  accepted  your  testimony  against 
us.  Not  that  they  would  have  been  altogether  fair  in 
their  view  of  you ;  on  the  contrary  I  think  there  is  a 
real  difference  between  what  you  protest  against,  and 
what  with  the  Fathers  you  hold ;  but  unread  men  of 
the  world  form  a  broad  practical  judgment  of  the 
things  which  come  before  them,  and  they  would  have 
felt  in  this  case  that  they  had  the  same  right  to  be 
shocked  at  you,  as  you  have  to  be  shocked  at  us ;  and 
further,  which  is  the  point  to  which  I  am  coming,  they 
would  have  said,  that,  granting  some  of  our  modern 
writers  go  beyond  the  Fathers  in  this  matter,  still  the 
line  cannot  be  logically  drawn  between  the  teaching 
of  the  Fathers  concerning  the  Blessed  Virgin  and  our 
own.  This  view  of  the  matter  seems  to  me  true  and 
important ;  I  do  not  think  the  line  can  be  satisfac- 


85 


Colored  by  their  Devotion  to  Her. 

torily  drawn,  and  to  this  point  I  shall  now  direct  my 
attention. 

It  is  impossible,  I  say,  in  a  doctrine  like  this,  to  draw 
the  line  cleanly  between  truth  and  error,  right  and 
wrong.  This  is  ever  the  case  in  concrete  matters, 
which  have  life.  Life  in  this  world  is  motion,  and 
involves  a  continual  process  of  change.  Living  things 
grow  into  their  perfection,  into  their  decline,  into  their 
death.  No  rule  of  art  will  suffice  to  stop  the  operation 
of  this  natural  law,  whether  in  the  material  world  or  in 
the  human  mind.  We  can  indeed  encounter  disorders, 
when  they  occur,  by  external  antagonism  and  remedies ; 
but  we  cannot  eradicate  the  process  itself,  out  of  which 
they  arise.  Life  has  the  same  right  to  decay  as  it  has 
to  wax  strong.  This  is  specially  the  case  with  great 
ideas.  You  may  stifle  them ;  or  you  may  refuse  them 
elbow-room ;  or  again,  you  may  torment  them  with 
your  continual  meddling ;  or  you  may  let  them  have 
free  course  and  range,  and  be  content,  instead  of  antici¬ 
pating  their  excesses,  to  expose  and  restrain  those  ex¬ 
cesses  after  they  have  occurred.  But  you  have  only 
this  alternative  ;  and  for  myself,  I  prefer  much  where- 
ever  it  is  possible,  to  be  first  generous  and  then  just ;  to 
grant  full  liberty  of  thought,  and  to  call  it  to  account 
when  abused. 

If  what  I  have  been  saying  be  true  of  energetic  ideas 
generally,  much  more  is  it  the  case  in  matters  of  reli¬ 
gion.  Religion  acts  on  the  affections ;  who  is  to  hinder 
these,  when  once  roused,  from  gathering  in  their 
strength  and  running  wild  ?  They  are  not  gifted  with 
any  connatural  principle  within  them,  which  renders 
them  self-governing,  and  self-adjusting.  They  hurry 
right  on  to  their  object,  and  often  in  their  case  it  is,  the 
more  haste,  the  worse  speed.  Their  object  engrosses 
th$m4  and  they  see  nothing  else.  And  of  all  passions 


86  Belief  of  Catholics  about  the  Blessed  Virgin 


love  is  the  most  unmanageable  ;  nay  more,  I  would  not 
give  much  for  that  love  which  is  never  extravagant, 
which  always  observes  the  proprieties,  and  can  move 
about  in  perfect  good  taste,  under  all  emergencies. 
What  mother,  what  husband  or  wife,  what  youth  or 
maiden  in  love,  but  says  a  thousand  foolish  things,  in 
the  way  of  endearment,  which  the  speaker  would  be 
sorry  for  strangers  to  hear ;  yet  they  are  not  on  that 
account  unwelcome  to  the  parties  to  whom  they  are 
addressed.  Sometimes  by  bad  luck  they  are  written 
down,  sometimes  they  get  into  the  newspapers ;  and 
what  might  be  even  graceful,  when  it  was  fresh  from 
the  heart,  and  interpreted  by  the  voice  and  the  coun¬ 
tenance,  presents  but  a  melancholy  exhibition  when 
served  up  cold  for  the  public  eye.  So  it  is  with  devo¬ 
tional  feelings.  Burning  thoughts  and  words  are  as 
open  to  criticism  as  they  are  beyond  it.  What  is 
abstractedly  extravagant,  may  in  particular  persons  be 
becoming  and  beautiful,  and  only  fall  under  blame  when 
it  is  found  in  others  who  imitate  them.  When  it  is 
formalized  into  meditations  or  exercises,  it  is  as  re¬ 
pulsive  as  love-letters  in  a  police  report.  Moreover, 
even  holy  minds  readily  adopt  and  become  familiar  with 
language  which  they  would  never  have  originated  them¬ 
selves,  when  it  proceeds  from  a  writer  who  has  the  same 
objects  of  devotion  as  they  have ;  and,  if  they  find  a 
stranger  ridicule  or  reprobate  supplication  or  praise 
which  has  come  to  them  so  recommended,  they  feel  it  as 
keenly  as  if  a  direct  insult  were  offered  to  those  to 
whom  that  homage  is  addressed.  In  the  next  place, 
what  has  power  to  stir  holy  and  refined  souls  is  potent 
also  with  the  multitude  ;  and  the  religion  of  the  multi¬ 
tude  is  ever  vulgar  and  abnormal ;  it  ever  will  be  tinc¬ 
tured  with  fanaticism  and  superstition,  while  men  are 
what  they  are.  A  people’s  religion  is  ever  a  corrupt 


Colored  by  their  Devotion  to  Her .  87 

religion,  in  spite  of  the  provisions  of  Holy  Church.  If 
she  is  to  be  Catholic,  you  must  admit  within  her  net 
fish  of  every  kind,  guests  good  and  bad,  vessels  of  gold, 
vessels  of  earth.  You  may  beat  religion  out  of  men,  if 
you  will,  and  then  their  excesses  will  take  a  different 
direction ;  but  if  you  make  use  of  religion  to  improve 
them,  they  will  make  use  of  religion  to  corrupt  it.  And 
then  you  will  have  effected  that  compromise  of  which 
our  countrymen  report  so  unfavorably  from  abroad : 
a  high  grand  faith  and  worship  which  compels  their 
admiration,  and  puerile  absurdities  among  the  people 
which  excite  their  contempt 

Nor  is  it  any  safeguard  against  these  excesses  in  a 
religious  system,  that  the  religion  is  based  upon  reason, 
and  develops  into  a  theology.  Theology  both  uses 
logic  and  baffles  it ;  and  thus  logic  acts  both  for  the  pro¬ 
tection  and  for  the  perversion  of  religion.  Theology  is 
occupied  with  supernatural  matters,  and  is  ever  running 
into  mysteries,  which  reason  can  neither  explain  nor 
adjust.  Its  lines  of  thought  come  to  an  abrupt  termina¬ 
tion,  and  to  pursue  them  or  to  complete  them  is  to 
plunge  down  the  abyss.  But  logic  blunders  on,  forcing 
its  way,  as  it  can,  through  thick  darkness  and  ethereal 
mediums.  The  Arians  went  ahead  with  logic  for  their 
directing  principle,  and  so  lost  the  truth  ;  on  the  other 
hand,  St.  Augustine  intimates  that,  if  we  attempt  to 
find  and  tie  together  the  ends  of  lines  which  run  into 
infinity,  we  shall  only  succeed  in  contradicting .  our¬ 
selves,  when,  in  his  Treatise  011  the  Holy  Trinity,  he  is 
unable  to  find  the  logical  reason  for  not  speaking  of 
three  Gods  as  well  as  of  One,  and  of  one  Person  in  the 
Godhead  as  well  as  of  Three.  I  do  not  mean  to  say 
that  logic  cannot  be  used  to  set  right  its  own  error,  or 
that  in  the  hands  of  an  able  disputant  it  may  not  trim 
the  balance  of  truth.  This  was  done  at  the  Councils  of 


88  Belief  of  Catholics  about  the  Blessed  Virgin 


Antioch  and  Nicaea,  on  occasion  of  the  heresies  of 
Paulus  and  Arius.  But  such  a  process  is  circuitous 
and  elaborate  ;  and  is  conducted  by  means  of  minute 
subtleties  which  will  give  it  the  appearance  of  a  game 
of  skill  in  matters  too  grave  and  practical  to  deserve  a 
mere  scholastic  treatment.  Accordingly  St.  Augustine, 
in  the  Treatise  above  mentioned,  does  no  more  than 
simply  lay  it  down  that  the  statements  in  question  are 
heretical,  that  is,  to  say  there  are  three  Gods  is  Trithe¬ 
ism,  and  to  say  there  is  but  one  person,  Sabellianism. 
That  is,  good  sense  and  a  large  view  of  truth  are  the 
correctives  of  his  logic.  And  thus  we  have  arrived  at 
the  final  resolution  of  the  whole  matter,  for  good  sense 
and  a  large  view  of  truth  are  rare  gifts ;  whereas  all 
men  are  bound  to  be  devout,  and  most  men  busy 
themselves  in  arguments  and  inferences. 

Now  let  me  apply  what  I  have  been  saying  to  the 
teaching  of  the  Church  on  the  subject  of  the  Blessed 
Virgin.  I  have  to  recur  to  a  subject  of  so  sacred  a 
nature,  that,  writing  as  I  am  for  publication,  I  need 
the  apology  of  my  purpose  for  venturing  to  pursue  it. 
I  say  then,  when  once  we  have  mastered  the  idea,  that 
Mary  bore,  suckled,  and  handled  the  Eternal  in  the 
form  of  a  child,  what  limit  is  conceivable  to  the  rush 
and  flood  of  thoughts  which  such  a  doctrine  involves  ? 
What  awe  and  surprise  must  attend  upon  the  know¬ 
ledge,  that  a  creature  has  been  brought  so  close  to  the 
Divine  Essence  ?  It  was  the  creation  of  a  new  idea 
and  of  a  new  sympathy,  of  a  new  faith  and  worship, 
when  the  holy  Apostles  announced  that  God  had  be¬ 
come  incarnate ;  then  a  supreme  love  and  devotion  to 
Him  became  possible,  which  seemed  hopeless  before 
that  revelation.  This  was  the  first  consequence  of 
their  preaching.  But,  besides  this,  a  second  range  of 
thoughts  was  opened  on  mankind,  unknown  before,  and 


Colored  by  their  Devotion  to  Her . 


89 


unlike  any  other,  as  soon  as  it  was  understood  that  that 
Incarnate  God  had  a  mother.  The  second  idea  is  per¬ 
fectly  distinct  from  the  former,  and  does  not  interfere 
with  it.  He  is  God  made  low,  she  is  a  woman  made 
high.  I  scarcely  like  to  use  a  familiar  illustration  on 
the  subject  of  the  Blessed  Virgin’s  dignity  among 
created  beings,  but  it  will  serve  to  explain  what  I 
mean,  when  I  ask  you  to  consider  the  difference  of 
feeling  with  which  we  read  the  respective  histories  of 
Maria  Theresa  and  the  Maid  of  Orleans;  or  with  which 
the  middle  and  lower  classes  of  a  nation  regard  a  first 
minister  of  the  day  who  has  come  of  an  aristocratic 
house,  and  one  who  has  risen  from  the  ranks.  May 
God’s  mercy  keep  me  from  the  shadow  of  a  thought, 
dimming  the  purity  or  blunting  the  keenness  of  that 
love  of  Him  which  is  our  sole  happiness  and  our  sole 
salvation  !  But  surely  when  He  became  man,  He 
brought  home  to  us  His  incommunicable  attributes 
with  a  distinctiveness  which  precludes  the  possibility 
of  our  lowering  Him  merely  by  our  exalting  a  creature. 
He  alone  has  an  entrance  into  our  soul,  reads  our 
secret  thoughts,  speaks  to  our  heart,  applies  to  us 
spiritual  pardon  and  strength.  On  Him  we  solely  de¬ 
pend.  He  alone  is  our  inward  life  ;  He  not  only  re¬ 
generates  us,  but  (to  use  the  words  appropriated  to  a 
higher  mystery)  semper  gignit ;  He  is  ever  renewing 
our  new  birth  and  our  heavenly  sonship.  In  this 
sense  He  may  be  called,  as  in  nature,  so  in  grace,  our 
real  Father.  Mary  is  only  our  mother  by  divine  ap¬ 
pointment,  given  us  from  the  Cross ;  her  presence  is 
above,  not  on  earth  ;  her  office  is  external,  not,  within 
us_.  Her  name  is  not  heard  in  the  administration  of 
the  Sacraments.  Her  work  is  not  one  of  ministration 
towards  us ;  her  power  is  indirect.  It  is  her  prayers 
that  avail,  and  her  prayers  are  effectual  by  the  fiat  of 


90  Belief  of  Catholics  about  the  Blessed  Virgin 


Him  who  is  our  all  in  all.  Nor  need  she  hear  us  by 
any  innate  power,  or  any  personal  gift ;  but  by  His 
manifestation  to  her  of  the  prayers  which  we  make  to 
her.  When  Moses  was  on  the  Mount,  the  Almighty 
told  him  of  the  idolatry  of  his  people  at  the  foot  of  it,  in 
order  that  he  might  intercede  for  them ;  and  thus  it 
is  the  Divine  Presence  which  is  the  intermediating 
Power  by  which  we  reach  her  and  she  reaches  us. 

Woe  is  me,  if  even  by  a  breath  I  sully  these  ineffable 

truths  !  but  still  without  prejudice  to  them,  there  is, 

I  say,  another  range  of  thought  quite  distinct  from 

them,  incommensurate  with  them,  of  which  the  Blessed 

Virgin  is  the  centre.  If  we  placed  our  Lord  in  that 

• 

centre,  we  should  only  be  dragging  Him  from  His 
throne,  and  making  Him  an  Arian  kind  of  a  God; 
that  is,  no  God  at  all.  He  who  charges  us  with 
making  Mary  a  divinity,  is  thereby  denying  the  divinity 
of  Jesus.  Such  a  man  does  nqt  know  what  divinity  is. 
Our  Lord  cannot  pray  for  us,  as  a  creature  prays,  as 
Mary  prays;  He  cannot  inspire  those  feelings  which  a 
creature  inspires.  To  her  belongs,  as  being  a  creature, 
a  natural  claim  on  our  sympathy  and  familiarity,  in 
that  slie  is  nothing  else  than  our  fellow.  She  is  our 
,_pride ;  in  the  poet’s  words,  “  Our  tainted  nature’s  soli¬ 
tary  boast.”  We  look  to  her  without  any  fear,  any 
remorse,  any  consciousness  that  she  is  able  to  read  us, 
judge  us,  punish  us.  Our  heart  yearns  towards  that 
pure  Virgin,  that  gentle  Mother,  and  our  congratula¬ 
tions  follow  her,  as  she  rises  from  Nazareth  and 
Ephesus,  through  the  choir  of  angels,  to  her  throne  on 
high,  so  weak,  yet  so  strong;  so  delicate,  yet  so 
glorious ;  so  modest,  and  yet  so  mighty.  She  has 
sketched  for  us  her  own  portrait  in  the  Magnificat : 
“  He  hath  regarded  the  low  estate  of  His  hand-maid; 
for,  behold,  from  henceforth  all  generations  shall  call 


Colored  by  their  Devotion  to  Her. 


91 


me  blessed.  He  hath  put  down  the  mighty  from  their 
seat;  and  hath  exalted  the  humble.  He  hath  filled 
the  hungry  with  good  things,  and  the  rich  he  hath  sent 
empty  away.”  I  recollect  the  strange  emotion  which 
took  by  surprise  men  and  women,  young  and  old, 
when,  at  the  Coronation  of  our  present  Queen,  they 
gazed  on  the  figure  of  one  so  like  a  child,  so  small,  so 
tender,  so  shrinking,  who  had  been  exalted  to  so  great 
an  inheritance  and  so  vast  a  rule,  who  was  such  a  con¬ 
trast  in  her  own  person  to  the  solemn  pageant  which 
centred  in  her.  Could  it  be  otherwise  with  the  specta¬ 
tors,  if  they  had  human  affection  ?  And  did  not  the 
All-wise  know  the  human  heart  when  He  took  to  Him¬ 
self  a  Mother  ?  did  he  not  anticipate  our  emotion  at  the 
sight  of  such  an  exaltation  in  one  so  simple  and  so 
lowly?  If  He  had  not  meant  her  to  exert  that  wonder¬ 
ful  influence  in  His  Church,  which  she  has  in  the  event 
exerted,  I  will  use  a  bold  word,  He  it  is  who  has  per¬ 
verted  us.  If  she  is  not  to  attract  our  homage,  why 
did  He  make  her  solitary  in  her  greatness  amid  His 
vast  creation  ?  If  it  be  idolatry  in  us  to  let  our 
affections  respond  to  our  faith,  He  would  not  have 
made  her  what  she  is,  or  He  would  not  have  told  us 
that  He  had  so  made  her ;  but,  far  from  this,  He  has 
sent  His  Prophet  to  announce  to  us,  “  A  Virgin  shall 
conceive  and  bear  a  Son,  and  they  shall  call  His  name 
Emmanuel,”  and  we  have  the  same  warrant  for  hailing 
her  as  God’s  Mother  as  we  have  for  adoring  Him  as  God. 

Christianity  is  eminently  an  objective  religion.  For 
the  most  part  it  tells  us  of  persons  and  facts  in  simple 
words,  and  leaves  that  announcement  to  produce  its 
effect  on  such  hearts  as  are  prepared  to  receive  it.  This 
at  least  is  its  general  character;  and  Butler  recognizes 
it  as  such  in  his  Analogy,  when  speaking  of  the  Second 
and  Third  Persons  of  the  Holy  Trinity.  “  The  internal 
worship,”  he  says,  “to  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost  is  no 


92 


Belief  of  Catholics  about  the  Blessed  Virgin. 


• 

farther  matter  of  pure  revealed  command  than  as  the  re¬ 
lations  they  stand  in  to  us  are  matters  of  pure  revela¬ 
tion  ;  for  the  relations  being  known,  the  obligations  to 
such  internal  worship  are  obligatio?is  of  reason  arising 
out  of  those  relations  themselves.”  *  It  is  in  this  way 
that  the  revealed  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  exerted  a 
stronger  and  a  broader  influence  on  Christians,  as 
they  more  and  more  apprehended  and  mastered  its 
meaning  and  its  bearings.  It  is  contained  in  the  brief 
and  simple  declaration  of  St.  John,  “  The  Word  was 
made  flesh  ’  ’  ;  but  it  required  century  after  century  to 
spread  it  out  in  its  fulness,  and  to  imprint  it  energeti¬ 
cally  on  the  worship  and  practice  of  the  Catholic  people 
as  well  as  on  their  faith.  Athanasius  was  the  first  and 
the  great  teacher  of  it.  He  collected  together  the  in¬ 
spired  notices  scattered  through  David,  Isaias,  St. 
Paul,  and  St.  John,  and  he  engraved  indelibly  upon  the 
imaginations  of  the  faithful,  as  had  never  been  before, 
that  man  is  God,  and  God  is  man,  that  in  Mary  they 
meet,  and  that  in  this  sense  Mary  is  the  centre  of  all 
things.  He  added  nothing  to  what  was  known  before, 
nothing  to  the  popular  and  zealous  faith  that  her  Son 
was  God  ;  he  has  left  behind  him  in  his  works  no  such 
definite  passages  about  her  as  those  of  St.  Irenaeus  or 
St.  Epiphanius  ;  but  he  brought  the  circumstances  of 
the  Incarnation  home  to  men’s  minds,  by  the  multiform 
evolutions  of  his  analysis,  and  thereby  secured  it  to  us 
for  ever  from  perversion.  Still,  however,  there  was 
much  to  be  done  ;  we  have  no  proof  that  Athanasius 
himself  had  any  special  devotion  to  the  Blessed 
Virgin,  but  he  laid  the  foundations  on  which  that  de¬ 
votion  was  to  rest,  and  thus  noiselessly  and  without 
strife,  as  the  first  Temple  was  built  in  the  Holy  City, 
she  grew  up  into  her  inheritance,  and  was  “  established 
in  Sion  and  her  power  was  in  Jerusalem.” 

*  Vid.  Essay  on  Doctr.  Dev.,  p.  50. 


CHAPTER  X. 


PROTESTANT  MISCONCEPTIONS  AND  CATH> 

OTIC  EXCESSES. 


Harshness  of  Condemnation  often  arises  from  Low 
Views  of  Christ’s  Divinity. — Suggestiveness  of  the 
Devotional  Extravagances  in  the  Greek  Church. — 
Many  Allegations  of  Excess  not  proven. — A  Fair 
Specimen  given  of  the  Teaching  of  Sound  Catho¬ 
lic  Devotional  Writers. — The  Lesson  of  the 
Sanctuary  Lamp,  of  the  Mass,  and  of  Communion. — 
A  Hymn  of  Father  Faber’s  given  as  a  Summary  of 

t 

Catholic  Sentiment. — Remarks  on  Extravagant 
Utterances  found  in  Italian  Writers.— Absence  of 
Devotional  Extravagance  among  Typical  English 
Writers. — The  “Raccolta”  as  an  authoritative: 
Exponent  of  Catholic  Devotion. — The  Catechism  oe 
the  Council  of  Trent. — Some  Extravagant  Utter¬ 
ances  Mentioned  and  Condemned. — True  Meaning 
of  Statements  about  Mary’s  Power  to  assist  us  in 
saving  our  Souls. — Standard  Catholic  Writers 
quoted. — Note  on  a  recent  Decision  at  Rome  on 
certain  Practices  and  Terms. — Remarks  on  Dr. 
Pusey’s  Method  and  Spirit  in  this  Controversy. 

CjUCH  was  the  origin  of  that  august  cultus  which  has 
been  paid  to  the  Blessed  Mary  for  so  many  centur¬ 
ies  in  the  East  and  in  the  West.  That  in  times  and 
places  it  has  fallen  into  abuse,  that  it  has  even  become 
a  superstition,  I  do  not  care  to  deny  ;  for,  as  I  have 
said  above,  the  same  process  which  brings  to  maturity 

93 


94 


Anglican  Misconceptions  and  Catholic 


carries  on  to  decay,  and  things  that  do  not  admit  of 
abuse  have  very  little  life  in  them.  This  of  course 
does  not  excuse  such  excesses,  or  justify  us  in  making 
light  of  them,  when  they  occur*  I  have  no  intention  of 
doing  so  as  regards  the  particular  instances  which  you 
bring  against  us,  though  but  a  few  words  will  suffice  for 
what  I  need  say  about  them  :  before  doing  so,  however, 
I  am  obliged  to  make  three  or  four  introductory  re¬ 
marks  in  explanation. 

1 .  I  have  almost  anticipated  my  first  remark  already. 
It  is  this  :  that  the  height  of  our  offending  in  our  devo¬ 
tion  to  the  Blessed  Virgin  would  not  look  so  great  in 
your  volume  as  it  does,  had  you  not  deliberately  placed 
yourself  on  lower  ground  than  your  own  feelings  to¬ 
wards  her  would  have  spontaneously  prompted  you  to 
take.  I  have  no  doubt  you  had  some  good  reason  for 
adopting  this  course,  but  I  do  not  know  it ;  what  I  do 
know  is,  that,  for  the  Father’s  sake  who  so  exalt  her, 
you  really  do  love  and  venerate  her,  though  you  do  not 
evidence  it  in  3^our  book.  I  am  glad  then  in  this  place 
to  insist  on  a  fact  which  will  lead  those  among  us,  who 
know  you  not,  to  love  you  from  their  love  of  her,  in 
spite  of  what  you  refuse  to  give  her;  and  lead  Angli¬ 
cans,  on  the  other  hand,  who  do  know  you,  to  think 
better  of  us,  who  refuse  her  nothing,  when  they  reflect 
that,  if  you  come  short  of  us,  you  do  not  actually  go 
against  us  in  your  devotion  to  her. 

2.  As  you  revere  the  Fathers,  so  you  revere  the  Greek 
Church ;  and  here  again  we  have  a  witness  on  our  be¬ 
half,  of  which  you  must  be  aware  as  fully  as  we  are,  and 
of  which  you  must  really  mean  to  give  us  the  benefit. 
In  proportion  as  the  Greek  ritual  is  known  to  the  re¬ 
ligious  public,  that  knowledge  will  take  off  the  edge  of 
the  surprise  of  Anglicans  at  the  sight  of  our  devotions 


Excesses  in  Devotion  to  the  Blessed  Virgin.  95 


to  our  Lady.  It  must  weigh  with  them,  when  they 
discover  that  we  can  enlist  on  our  side  in  this  contro¬ 
versy  those  “seventy  millions”  (I  think  they  do  so 
consider  them)  of  Orientals  who  are  separated  from  our 
communion.  Is  it  not  a  very  pregnant  fact,  that  the 
Eastern  Churches,  so  independent  of  us,  so  long  sepa¬ 
rated  from  the  West,  so  jealous  for  Antiquity,  should 
even  surpass  us  in  their  exaltation  of  the  Blessed  Vir¬ 
gin  ?  That  they  go  further  than  we  do  is  sometimes 
denied,  on  the  ground  that  the  Western  devotion 
towards  her  is  brought  out  into  system,  and  the  Eastern 
is  not ;  yet  this  only  means  really,  that  the  Latins  have 
more  mental  activity,  more  strength  of  intellect,  less  of 
routine,  less  of  mechanical  worship  among  them,  than 
the  Greeks.  We  are  able,  better  than  they,  to  give  an 
account  of  what  we  do ;  and  we  seem  to  be  more  ex¬ 
treme,  merely  because  we  are  more  definite.  But,  after 
all,  what  have  the  Latins  done  so  bold  as  that  substitu¬ 
tion  of  the  name  of  Mary  for  the  Name  of  Jesus  at  the 
end  of  the  collects  and  petitions  in  the  Breviary,  nay,  in 
the  Ritual  and  Liturgy  ?  Not  merely  in  local  or  popu¬ 
lar,  and  in  semi-authorized  devotions,  which  are  the 
kind  of  sources  that  supply  you  with  your  matter  of  ac¬ 
cusation  against  us,  but  in  the  formal  prayers  of  the 
Greek  Eucharistic  Service,  petitions  are  offered,  not  in 
“  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,”  but  in  that  “  of  the  Theo- 
tocos.”  Such  a  phenomenon,  in  such  a  quarter,  I  think 
ought  to  make  Anglicans  merciful  towards  those  writers 
among  ourselves  who  have  been  excessive  in  singing 
the  praises  of  the  Deipara.  To  make  a  rule  of  substi¬ 
tuting  Mary  with  all  Saints  for  Jesus  in  the  public  ser¬ 
vice,  has  more  “  Mariolatry  ”  in  it,  than  to  alter  the  Te 
Deum  to  her  honor  in  private  devotion. 

3.  And  thus  I  am  brought  to  a  third  remark,  supple¬ 
mental  to  your  accusation  of  us.  Two  large  views,  as  I 


96 


A  nglican  Misconceptions  and  Catholic 


have  said  above,  are  opened  upon  our  devotional 
thoughts  in  Christianity ;  the  one  centring  in  the  Son 
of  Mary,  the  other  in  the  Mother  of  Jesus.  Neither 
need  obscure  the  other;  and  in  the  Catholic  Church,  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  neither  does.  I  wish  you  had  either 
frankly  allowed  this  in  your  volume,  or  proved  the 
contrary.  I  wish,  when  you  report  that  “  a  certain  pro¬ 
portion”  of  Catholics,  “it  has  been  ascertained  by 
those  who  have  inquired,  do,”  in  their  devotions,  “  stop 
short  in  her,”  p.  107,  that  you  had  added  your  belief, 
that  the  case  was  far  otherwise  with  the  great  bulk  of 
Catholics.  Might  I  not  have  expected  such  an  avowal? 
May  I  not,  without  sensitiveness,  be  somewhat  pained 
at  the  omission  ?  From  mere  Protestants,  indeed,  I  ex¬ 
pect  nothing  better.  They  content  themselves  with 
saying  that  our  devotions  to  our  Lady  must  necessarily 
throw  our  Lord  into  the  shade ;  and  thereby  they  relieve 
themselves  of  a  great  deal  of  trouble.  Then  they  catch 
at  any  stray  fact  which  countenances  or  seems  to  coun¬ 
tenance  their  prejudice.  Now  I  say  plainly,  I  never 
will  defend  or  screen  any  one  from  your  just  rebuke 
who,  through  false  devotion  to  Mary,  forgets  Jesus. 
But  I  should  like  the  fact  to  be  proved  first ;  I  cannot 
hastily  admit  it.  There  is  this  broad  fact  the  other 
way ;  that,  if  we  look  through  Europe,  we  shall  find,  on 
the  whole,  that  just  those  nations  and  countries  have 
lost  their  faith  in  the  divinity  of  Christ  who  have  given 
up  devotion  to  His  Mother,  and  that  those,  on  the  other 
hand,  who  had  been  foremost  in  her  honor  have  re¬ 
tained  their  orthodoxy.  Contrast,  for  instance,  the  Cal¬ 
vinists  with  the  Greeks,  or  France  with  the  North  of 
Germany,  or  the  Protestant  and  Catholic  communions 
in  Ireland.  As  to  England,  it  is  scarcely  doubtful  what 
would  be  the  state  of  its  Established  Church,  if  the 
Liturgy  and  Articles  were  not  an  integral  part  of  its 


Excesses  in  Devotion  to  the  Blessed  Virgin.  97 


Establishment ;  and,  when  men  bring  so  grave  a  charge 
against  us,  as  is  implied  in  your  volume,  they  cannot 
be  surprised  if  we  in  turn  say  hard  things  of  Anglican¬ 
ism.*  In  the  Catholic  Church  Mary  has  shown  herself, 
not  the  rival,  but  the  minister  of  her  Son  ;  she  has  pro¬ 
tected  Him,  as  in  His  infancy,  so  in  the  whole  history 
of  the  Religion.  There  is  then  a  plain  historical  truth 
in  Dr.  Faber’s  words,  which  you  quote  to  condemn, 
“  Jesus  is  obscured,  because  Mary  is  kept  in  the  back¬ 
ground.’’ 

This  truth,  exemplified  in  history,  might  also  be 
abundantly  illustrated,  did  my  space  admit,  from  the 
lives  and  writings  of  holy  men  in  modern  times.  Two 
of  them,  St.  Alfonso  Eiguori  and  the  Blessed  Paul  of 
the  Cross,  for  all  their  notorious  devotion  to  the  Mother, 
have  shown  their  supreme  love  of  her  Divine  Son,  in 
the  names  which  they  have  given  to  their  respective 
Congregations,  viz.,  that  “of  the  Redeemer,”  and  that 
“of  the  Cross  and  Passion.”  However,  I  will  do  no 
more  than  refer  to  an  apposite  passage  in  the  Italian 
translation  of  the  work  of  a  French  Jesuit,  Fr.  Nepveu, 
Christian  Thoughts  for  every  Day  in  the  Year,  which 


*  I  have  spoken  more  on  this  subject  in  my  Essay  on  Development, 
p.  438,  “Nor  does  it  avail  to  object,  that,  in  this  contrast  of  devotional 
exercises,  the  human  is  sure  to  supplant  the  Divine,  from  the  infirmity  of 
our  nature ;  for,  I  repeat,  the  question  is  one  of  fact,  whether  it  has  done 
so.  And  next,  it  must  be  asked,  whether  the  character  of  Protestant  devo¬ 
tion  towards  our  Lord ,  has  beeii  that  of  worship  at  all ;  and  not  rath  er  such 
as  we  pay  to  an  excellent  human  being.  .  .  .  Carnal  minds  will  ever 

create  a  carnal  worship  for  themselves ;  and  to  forbid  them  the  service  of 
the  saints,  will  have  no  tendency  to  teach  them  the  worship  of  God.  More¬ 
over,  .  .  .  great  and  constant  as  is  the  devotion  which  the  Catholic 

pays  to  St.  Mary,  it  has  a  special  province,  and  has  far  more  connection  with 
the  public  services  a?id  the  festive  aspect  of  Christianity ,  and  with  certain 
extraordinary  offices  which  she  holds,  than  with  what  is  strictly  personal 
and  primary  in  religion.”  Our  late  Cardinal  [Wiseman],  on  my  reception, 
singled  out  to  me  this  last  sentence,  for  the  expression  of  his  especial  appro¬ 
bation. 


98 


Anglican  Misconceptions  and  Catholic 


was  recommended  to  the  friend  who  went  with  me  to 
Rome,  by  the  same  Jesuit  Father  there,  with  whom,  as 
I  have  already  said,  I  stood  myself  in  such  intimate 
relations ;  I  believe  it  is  a  fair  specimen  of  the  teaching 
of  our  spiritual  books  : 

“  The  love  of  Jesus  Christ  is  the  most  sure  pledge  of 
our  future  happiness,  and  the  most  infallible  token  of 
our  predestination.  Mercy  towards  the  poor,  devotion 
to  the  Holy  Virgin,  are  very  sensible  tokens  of  predesti¬ 
nation  ;  nevertheless  they  are  not  absolutely  infallible  ; 
but  one  cannot  have  a  sincere  and  constant  love  of  Jesus 
Christ  without  being  predestinated.  .  .  .  The  de¬ 

stroying  angel,  which  bereaved  the  houses  of  the 
Egyptians  of  their  first-born,  had  respect  to  all  the 
houses  which  were  marked  with  the  blood  of  the 
Earnb.” 

And  it  is  also  exemplified,  as  I  verily  believe,  not 
only  in  formal  and  distinctive  Confessions,  not  only  in 
books  intended  for  the  educated  class,  but  also  in  the 
personal  religion  of  the  Catholic  populations.  When 
strangers  are  so  unfavorably  impressed  with  us,  because 
they  see  Images  of  our  Eady  in  our  churches,  and 
crowds  flocking  about  her,  they  forget  that  there  is  a 
Presence  within  the  sacred  walls,  infinitely  more  awful, 
which  claims  and  obtains  from  us  a  worship  transcen- 
dently  different  from  any  devotion  we  pay  to  her.  That 
devotion  to  her  might  indeed  tend  to  idolatry,  if  it 
were  encouraged  in  Protestant  churches,  where  there  is 
nothing  higher  than  it  to  attract  the  worshipper;  but 
all  the  images  that  a  Catholic  church  ever  contained,  all 
the  Crucifixes  at  its  Altars  brought  together,  do  not  so 
affect  its  frequenters  as  the  lamp  which  betokens  the 
presence  or  absence  there  of  the  Blessed  Sacrament.  Is 
not  this  so  certain,  so  notorious,  that  on  .some  occasions 
it  has  been  even  brought  as  a  charge  against  us,  that 


Excesses  in  Devotion  to  the  Blessed  Virgin.  99 


we  are  irreverent  in  church,  when  what  seemed  to  the 
objector  to  be  irreverence  was  but  the  necessary  change 
of  feeling,  which  came  over  those  who  were  in  it,  on 
their  knowing  that  their  Lord  was  no  longer  there,  but 
away  ? 

The  Mass  again  conveys  to  us  the  same  lesson  of  the 
sovereignty  of  the  Incarnate  Son ;  it  is  a  return  to 
Calvary,  and  Mary  is  scarcely  named  in  it.  Hostile 
visitors  enter  our  churches  on  Sunday  at  mid-day,  the 
time  of  the  Anglican  service.  They  are  surprised  to  see 
the  High  Mass  perhaps  poorly  attended,  and  a  body  of 
worshippers  leaving  the  music  and  the  mixed  multitude 
who  may  be  lazily  fulfilling  their  obligation,  for  the 
silent  or  the  informal  devotions  which  are  offered  at  an 
Image  of  the  Blessed  Virgin.  They  may  be  tempted, 
with  one  of  your  informants,  to  call  such  a  temple,  not 
a  “Jesus  church,”  but  a  “Mary  church.”  But,  if 
they  understood  our  ways,  they  would  know  that  we 
begin  the  day  with  our  Lord  and  then  go  on  to  His 
Mother.  It  is  early  in  the  morning  that  religious  per¬ 
sons  go  to  Mass  and  Communion.  The  High  Mass,  on 
the  other  hand,  is  the  festive  celebration  of  the  day,  not 
the  special  devotional  service ;  nor  is  there  any  reason 
why  those  who  have  been  at  Low  Mass  already  should 
not  at  that  hour  proceed  to  ask  the  intercession  of  the 
Blessed  Virgin  for  themselves  and  all  that  is  dear  to 
them. 

Communion,  again,  which  is  given  in  the  morning, 
is  a  solemn  unequivocal  act  of  faith  in  the  Incarnate 
God,  if  any  can  be  such ;  and  the  most  gracious  of 
admonitions,  did  we  need  one,  of  His  sovereign  and  sole 
right  to  possess  us.  I  knew  a  lady,  who  on  her  death¬ 
bed  was  visited  by  an  excellent  Protestant  friend.  The 
latter,  with  great  tenderness  for  her  soul’s  welfare, 
asked  her  whether  her  prayers  to  the  Blessed  Virgin 


100 


Anglican  Misconceptions  and  Catholic 


did  not,  at  that  awful  hour,  lead  to  forgetfulness  of 
her  Saviour.  “Forget  Him?”  she  replied  with  sur¬ 
prise.  “  Why,  He  was  just  now  here.”  She  had  been 
receiving  Him  in  Communion.  When  then,  my  dear 
Pusey,  you  read  anything  extravagant  in  praise  of  our 
Fady,  is  it  not  charitable  to  ask,  even  while  you  con¬ 
demn  it  in  itself,  did  the  author  write  nothing  else? 
Had  he  written  on  the  Blessed  Sacrament?  had  he 
given  up  “  all  for  Jesus  ”  ?  I  recollect  some  lines,  the 
happiest,  I  think,  which  that  author  wrote,  which  bring 
out  strikingly  the  reciprocity,  which  I  am  dwelling  on, 
of  the  respective  devotions  to  Mother  and  Son  : 

“  But  scornful  men  have  coldly  said 

Thy  love  was  leading  me  from  God  ; 

And  yet  in  this  I  did  but  tread 
The  very  path  my  Saviour  trod. 

“  They  know  but  little  of  thy  worth 

Who  speak  these  heartless  words  to  me; 

For  what  did  Jesus  love  on  earth 
One  half  so  tenderly  as  thee  ? 

“  Get  me  the  grace  to  love  thee  more ; 

Jesus  will  give,  if  thou  wilt  plead  ; 

And  Mother,  when  life’s  cares  are  o’er, 

Oh !  I  shall  love  thee  then  indeed. 

“  Jesus,  when  His  three  hours  were  run, 

Bequeath’d  thee  from  the  Cross  to  me ; 

And  oh !  how  can  I  love  thy  Son, 

Sweet  Mother,  if  I  love  not  thee.” 

4.  Thus  we  are  brought  from  the  consideration  of  the 
sentiments  themselves,  of  which  you  complain,  to  the 
persons  who  wrote,  and  the  places  where  they  wrote 
them.  I  wish  you  had  been  led,  in  this  part  of  your 
work,  to  that  sort  of  careful  labor  which  you  have 
employed  in  so  masterly  a  way  in  your  investigation  of 


Excesses  in  Devotio?i  to  the  Blessed  Virgin. 


IOI 


the  circumstances  of  the  definition  of  the  Immaculate 
Conception.  In  the  latter  case  you  have  catalogued 
the  bishops  who  wrote  to  the  Holy  See,  and  analyzed 
their  answers.  Had  you  in  like  manner  discriminated 
and  located  the  Marian  writers,  as  you  call  them,  and 
observed  the  times,  places,  and  circumstances  of  their 
wrorks,  I  think  they  would  not,  when  brought  together, 
have  had  their  present  startling  effect  on  the  reader. 
As  it  is,  they  inflict  a  vague  alarm  upon  the  mind,  as 
when  one  hears  a  noise,  and  does  not  know  whence  it 
comes  and  what  it  means.  Some  of  your  authors,  I 
know,  are  Saints ;  all,  I  suppose,  are  spiritual  writers 
and  holy  men ;  but  the  majority  are  of  no  great  celeb¬ 
rity,  even  if  they  have  any  kind  of  weight.  Suarez 
has  no  business  among  them  at  all,  for,  when  he  says 
that  no  one  is  saved  without  t'  e  Blessed  Virgin,  he  is 
speaking  not  of  devotion  to  hei,  but  of  her  intercession. 
The  greatest  name  is  St.  Alfonso  Liguori  ;  but  it 
never  surprises  me  to  read  anything  extraordinary  in 
the  devotions  of  a  saint.  Such  men  are  on  a  level 
very  different  from  our  own,  and  we  cannot  understand 
them.  I  hold  this  to  be  an  important  canon  in  the 
Lives  of  the  Saints,  according  to  the  words  of  the 
Apostle,  “  The  spiritual  man  judges  all  things,  and  he 
himself  is  judged  of  no  one.”  But  we  may  refrain  from 
judging,  without  proceeding  to  imitate.  I  hope  it  is 
not  disrespectful  to  so  great  a  servant  of  God  to  say, 
that  I  never  have  read  his  Glories  of  Mary  ;  but  here  I 
am  speaking  generally  of  all  Saints,  whether  I  know 
them  or  not ;  and  I  say  that  they  are  beyond  us,  and 
that  we  must  use  them  as  patterns,  not  as  copies.  As 
to  his  practical  directions,  St.  Alfonso  wrote  them  tor 
Neapolitans,  whom  he  knew,  and  we  do  not  know. 
Other  writers  whom  you  quote,  as  De  Salazar,  are  too 
ruthlessly  logical  to  be  safe  or  pleasant  guides  in  the 


102 


Anglican  Misco7iceptions  and  Catholic 


delicate  matters  of  devotion.  As  to  De  Montford  and 
Oswald,  I  never  even  met  with  their  names,  till  I  saw 
them  in  your  book  ;  the  bulk  of  our  laity,  not  to  say  of 
our  clergy,  perhaps  know  them  little  better  than  I  do. 
Nor  did  I  know  till  I  learnt  it  from  your  volume  that 
there  were  two  Bernardines.  St.  Bernardine  of  Sienna 
I  knew,  of  course,  and  knew  too  that  he  had  a  burning 
love  for  our  Lord.  But  about  the  other,  “Bernardine 
de  Bustis,”  I  was  quite  at  fault.  I  find  from  the  Pro¬ 
testant  Cave,  that  he,  as  well  as  his  namesake,  made 
himself  also  conspicuous  for  his  zeal  for  the  Holy 
Name,  which  is  much  to  the  point  here.  “  With  such 
devotion  was  he  carried  away,”  says  Cave,  “for  the 
bare  Name  of  Jesus  (which,  by  a  new  device  of  Ber¬ 
nardine  of  Sienna,  had  lately  begun  to  receive  divine 
honors),  that  he  was  urgent  with  Innocent  VIII.  to 
assign  it  a  day  and  rite  in  the  Calendar.” 

One  thing,  however,  is  clear  about  all  these  writers  ; 
that  not  one  of  them  is  an  Englishman.  I  have  gone 
through  your  book,  and  do  not  find  one  English  name 
among  the  various  authors  to  whom  you  refer,  except  of 
course  the  name  of  the  author  whose  lines  I  have  been 
quoting,  and  who,  great  as  are  his  merits,  cannot,  for 
the  reasons  I  have  given  in  the  opening  of  my  Letter, 
be  considered  a  representative  of  English  Catholic  devo¬ 
tion.  Whatever  these  writers  may  have  said  or  not 
said,  whatever  they  may  have  said  harshly,  and  what¬ 
ever  capable  of  fair  explanation,  still  they  are  for¬ 
eigners  ;  we  are  not  answerable  for  their  particular 
devotions ;  and  as  to  themselves,  I  am  glad  to  be  able  to 
quote  the  beautiful  words  which  you  use  about  them  in 
your  letter  to  the  Weekly  Register  of  November  25th 
last.  “I  do  not  presume,”  you  say,  “to  prescribe  to 
Italians  or  Spaniards  what  they  shall  hold,  or  how  they 
shall  express  their  pious  opinions ;  and  least  of  all  did  I 


Excesses  in  Devotion  to  the  Blessed  Virgin.  103 


think  of  imputing  to  any  of  the  writers  whom  I  quoted 
that  they  took  from  our  Lord  any  of  the  love  which 
they  gave  to  His  Mother.”  I11  these  last  words  too  you 
have  supplied  one  of  the  omissions  in  your  volume 
which  I  noticed  above. 

5.  Now  then  we  come  to  England  itself,  which  after 
all,  in  the  matter  of  devotion,  alone  concerns  you  and 
me  ;  for  though  doctrine  is  one  and  the  same  every¬ 
where,  devotions,  as  I  have  already  said,  are  matters  of 
the  particular  time  and  the  particular  country.  I  sup¬ 
pose  we  owe  it  to  the  national  good  sense,  that  English 
Catholics  have  been  protected  from  the  extravagances 
which  are  elsewhere  to  be  found.  And  we  owe  it  also 
to  the  wisdom  and  moderation  of  the  Holy  See,  which, 
in  giving  us  the  pattern  for  our  devotion,  as  well  as  the 
rule  of  our  faith,  has  never  indulged  in  those  curiosities 
of  thought  which  are  both  so  attractive  to  undisciplined 
imaginations  and  so  dangerous  to  grovelling  hearts. 
I11  the  case  of  our  own  common  people  I  think  such  a 
forced  style  of  devotion  would  be  simply  unintelligible ; 
as  to  the  educated,  I  doubt  whether  it  can  have  more 
than  an  occasional  or  temporary  influence.  If  the 
Catholic  faith  spreads  in  England,  these  peculiarities 
will  not  spread  with  it.  There  is  a  healthy  devotion  to 
the  Blessed  Mary,  and  there  is  an  artificial ;  it  is  possi¬ 
ble  to  love  her  as  a  Mother,  to  honor  her  as  a  Virgin,  to 
seek  her  as  a  Patron,  and  to  exalt  her  as  a  Queen,  with¬ 
out  any  injury  to  solid  piety  and  Christian  good  sense  ; 
I  cannot  help  calling  this  the  English  style.  I  wonder 
whether  you  find  anything  to  displease  you  in  the 
Garden  of  the  Sold ,  the  Key  of  Heaven,  the  Vadc 
Mccum ,  the  Golden  Manual,  or  the  Crown  of  fesus. 
These  are  the  books  to  which  Anglicans  ought  to 
appeal  who  would  be  fair  to  us  in  this  matter.  I  do 
not  observe  anything  in  them  which  goes  beyond  the 


104 


Anglican  Misconceptions  and  Catholic 


teaching  of  the  Fathers,  except  so  far  as  devotion  goes 
beyond  doctrine. 

There  is  one  collection  of  devotions  besides,  of  the 
highest  authority,  which  has  been  introduced  from 
abroad  of  late  years.  It  consists  of  prayers  of  very 
various  kinds  which  have  been  indulgenced  by  the 
Popes ;  and  it  commonly  goes  by  the  name  of  the 
Raccolta.  As  that  word  suggests,  the  language  of  many 
of  the  prayers  is  Italian,  while  others  are  in  Eatin. 
This  circumstance  is  unfavorable  to  a  translation, 
which,  however  skilful,  must  ever  savor  of  the  words 
and  idioms  of  the  original ;  but,  passing  over  this  neces¬ 
sary  disadvantage,  I  consider  there  is  hardly  a  clause  in 
the  good-sized  volume  in  question  which  even  the  sensi¬ 
tiveness  of  English  Catholicism  would  wish  changed. 
Its  anxious  observance  of  doctrinal  exactness  is  almost 
a  fault.  It  seems  afraid  of  using  the  words  “  give  me,” 
“  make  me,”  in  its  addresses  to  the  Blessed  Virgin, 
which  are  as  natural  to  adopt  in  speaking  to  her,  as  in 
addressing  a  parent  or  friend.  Surely  we  do  not 
disparage  Divine  Providence  when  we  say  that  we  are 
indebted  to  our  parents  for  our  life,  or  when  we  ask 
their  blessing  ;  we  do  not  show  any  atheistical  leaning 
because  we  say  that  a  man’s  recovery  must  be  left  to 
nature,  or  that  nature  supplies  brute  animals  with 
instincts.  In  like  manner  it  seems  to  me  a  simple  pur¬ 
ism  to  insist  upon  minute  accuracy  of  expression  in 
devotional  and  popular  writings.  However,  the  Rac¬ 
colta,  as  coming  from  responsible  authority,  for  the  most 
part  observes  it.  It  commonly  uses  the  phrases  “gain 
for  us  by  thy  prayers,”  “  obtain  for  us,”  “  pray  to  Jesus 
for  me,”  “speak  for  me,  Mary,”  “carry  thou  our 
prayers,”  “ask  for  us  grace,”  “intercede  for  the 
people  of  God.”  and  the  like,  marking  thereby  with 
great  emphasis  that  she  is  nothing  more  than  an  Advo- 


Excesses  in  Devotion  to  the  Blessed  Virgin.  105 


cate,  and  not  a  source  of  mercy.  Nor  do  I  recollect  in 
this  book  more  than  one  or  two  ideas  to  which  you 
would  be  likely  to  raise  an  objection.  The  strongest  of 
these  is  found  in  the  Novena  before  her  Nativity,  in 
which,  apropos  of  her  Birth,  we  pray  that  she  “would 
come  down  again,  and  be  reborn  spiritually  in  our 
souls”  ;  but  it  will  occur  to  you  that  St.  Paul  speaks 
of  his  wish  to  impart  to  his  converts,  “not  only  the 
gospel,  but  his  own  soul”  ;  and  writing  to  the  Corin¬ 
thians,  he  says  he  has  “  begotten  them  by  the  gospel,” 
and  to  Philemon,  that  he  had  “begotten  Onesimus,  in 
his  bonds”  ;  whereas  St.  James,  with  greater  accuracy 
of  expression,  says  “  of  His  own  will  hath  God  begotten 
us  with  the  word  of  truth.”  Again,  we  find  the 
petitioner  saying  to  the  Blessed  Mary,  “  In  thee  I  place 
all  my  hope  ’  ’  ;  but  this  is  explained  by  another  pas¬ 
sage,  “  Thou  art  my  best  hope  after  Jesus.”  Again, 
we  read  elsewhere,  “  I  would  I  had  a  greater  love  for 
thee,  since  to  love  thee  is  a  great  mark  of  predestina¬ 
tion  ”  ;  but  the  prayer  goes  on,  “Thy  Son  deserves  of 
us  an  immeasurable  love;  pray  that  I  may  have  this 
grace,  a  great  love  for  Jesus,”  and  further  on,  “I  covet 
no  good  of  the  earth,  but  to  love  my  God  alone.” 

Then  again,  as  to  the  lessons  which  our  Catholics 
receive,  whether  by  catechising  or  instruction,  you 
would  find  nothing  in  our  received  manuals  to  which 
you  would  not  assent,  I  am  quite  sure.  Again,  as  to 
preaching,  a  standard  book  was  drawn  up  three  cen¬ 
turies  ago,  to  supply  matter  for  the  purpose  to  the 
parochial  clergy.  You  incidentally  mention,  p.  153, 
that  the  comment  of  Cornelius  a  Lapide  on  Scripture  is 
‘  ‘  a  repertorium  for  sermons  ’ 5  ;  but  I  never  heard  of  this 
work  being  so  used,  nor  indeed  can  it,  because  of  its 
size.  The  work  provided  for  the  purpose  by  the  Church 
is  the  “  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent,”  and  noth- 


Anglican  Misconceptions  and  Catholic 


ing  extreme  about  our  Blessed  Lady  is  propounded 
there.  On  the  whole  I  am  sanguine  that  you  will  come 
to  the  conclusion,  that  Anglicans  may  safely  trust  them¬ 
selves  to  us  English  Catholics,  as  regards  any  devotions 
to  the  Blessed  Virgin  which  might  be  required  of  them 
over  and  above  the  rule  of  the  Council  of  Trent. 

6.  And,  now  at  length  coming  to  the  statements, 
not  English,  but  foreign,  which  offend  you  in  works 
written  in  her  honor,  I  will  allow  that  I  like  some 
of  those  which  you  quote  as  little  as  you  do.  I  will 
frankly  say  that,  when  I  read  them  in  your  volume, 
they  affected  me  with  grief  and  almost  anger ;  for  they 
seemed  to  me  to  ascribe  to  the  Blessed  Virgin  a  power 
of  “  searching  the  reins  and  hearts,”  which  is  the  at¬ 
tribute  of  God  alone  ;  and  I  said  to  myself,  how  can  we 
any  longer  prove  our  Lord’s  divinity  from  Scripture,  if 
those  cardinal  passages  which  invest  Him  with  divine 
prerogatives,  after  all  invest  Him  with  nothing  beyond 
what  His  Mother  shares  with  Him  ?  And  how,  again, 
is  there  anything  of  incommunicable  greatness  in  His 
death  and  passion,  if  He  who  was  alone  in  the  garden, 
alone  upon  the  cross,  alone  in  the  resurrection,  after  all 
is  not  alone,  but  shared  His  solitary  work  with  His 
Blessed  Mother — with  her  to  whom,  when  He  entered 
on  His  ministry,  He  said  for  our  instruction,  not  as 
grudging  her  her  proper  glory,  “  Woman,  what  have  I 
to  do  with  thee?”  And  then  again,  if  I  hate  those 
perverse  sayings  so  much,  how  much  more  must  she,  in 
proportion  to  her  love  of  Him?  and  how  do  we  show 
our  love  for  her,  by  wounding  her  in  the  very  apple  of 
her  eye  ?  This  I  felt  and  feel ;  but  then  on  the  other 
hand  I  have  to  observe  that  these  strange  words  after 
all  are  but  few  in  number,  out  of  the  many  passages 
you  cite  ;  that  most  of  them  exemplify  what  I  said 
above  about  the  difficulty  of  determining  the  exact 


Excesses  in  Devotion  to  the  Blessed  Virgin.  107 

point  where  truth  passes  into  error,  and  that  they  are 
allowable  in  one  sense  or  connection,  though  false  in 
another.  Thus  to  say  that  prayer  (and  the  Blessed 
Virgin’s  prayer)  is  omnipotent,  is  a  harsh  expression 
in  every-day  prose  ;  but,  if  it  is  explained  to  mean  that 
there  is  nothing  which  prayer  may  not  obtain  from  God, 
it  is  nothing  else  than  the  very  promise  made  jus  in 
Scripture.  Again,  to  say  that  Mary  is  the  centre  of  all 
beings,  sounds  inflated  and  profane ;  yet  after  all  it  is 
only  one  way,  and  a  natural  way,  of  saying  that  the 
Creator  and  the  creature  met  together,  and  became  one 
in  her  womb  ;  and  as  such,  I  have  used  the  expression 
above.  Again,  it  is  at  first  sight  a  paradox  to  say  that 
“Jesus  is  obscured,  because  Mary  is  kept  in  the  back¬ 
ground  ”  ;  yet  there  is  a  sense,  as  I  have  shown  above, 
in  which  it  is  a  simple  truth. 

And  so  again  certain  statements  may  be  true,  under 
circumstances  and  in  a  particular  time  and  place,  which 
are  abstractedly  false  ;  and  hence  it  may  be  very  unfair 
in  a  controversialist  to  interpret  by  an  English  or  a 
modern  rule,  whatever  may  have  been  asserted  by  a 
foreign  or  mediaeval  author.  To  say  for  instance,  dog¬ 
matically,  that  no  one  can  be  saved  without  personal 
devotion  to  the  Blessed  Virgin,  would  be  an  untenable 
proposition;  yet  it  might  be  true  of  this  man  or  that, 
or  of  this  or  that  country  at  this  or  that  date  ;  and,  if 
that  very  statement  has  ever  been  made  by  any  writer 
of  consideration  (and  this  has  to  be  ascertained),  then 
perhaps  it  was  made  precisely  under  these  exceptional 
circumstances.  If  an  Italian  preacher  made  it,  I  should 
feel  no  disposition  to  doubt  him,  at  least  if  he  spoke  of 
Italian  youths  and  Italian  maidens. 

Next  I  think  you  have  not  always  made  your  quota¬ 
tions  with  that  consideration  and  kindness  which  is 
your  rule.  At  p.  106  you  say,  “It  is  commonly  said 


io8 


Anglican  Misconceptions  and  Catholic 


that,  if  any  Roman  Catholic  acknowledges  that  ‘it  is 
good  and  useful  to  pray  to  the  saints,’  he  is  not  bound 
himself  to  do  so.  Were  the  above  teaching  true,  it 
would  be  cruelty  to  say  so ;  because,  according  to  it, 
he  would  be  forfeiting  what  is  morally  necessary  to  his 
salvation.”  But  now,  as  to  the  fact,  by  whom  is  it 
said  that  to  pray  to  our  Rady  and  the  Saints  is 
necessary  to  salvation  ?  The  proposition  of  St.  Alfonso 
is,  that  “  God  gives  no  grace  except  through  Mary  ”  ; 
that  is,  through  her  intercession.  But  intercession  is 
one  thing,  devotion  is  another.  And  Suarez  says,  “  It 
is  the  universal  sentiment  that  the  intercession  of  Mary 
is  not  only  useful,  but  also  in  a  certain  manner  neces¬ 
sary  ”  ;  but  still  it  is  the  question  of  her  intercession, 
not  of  our  invocation  of  her,  not  of  devotion  to  her.  If 
it  were  so,  no  Protestant  could  be  saved ;  if  it  were  so, 
there  would  be  grave  reasons  for  doubting  of  the  sal¬ 
vation  of  St.  Chrysostom  or  St.  Athanasius,  or  of  the 
primitive  Martyrs ;  nay,  I  should  like  to  know  whether 
St.  Augustine,  in  all  his  voluminous  writings,  invokes 
her  once.  Our  Lord  died  for  those  heathens  who  did 
not  know  Him  ;  and  His  Mother  intercedes  for  those 
Christians  who  do  not  know  her ;  and  she  intercedes 
according  to  His  will,  and,  when  He  wills  to  save  a 
particular  soul,  she  at  once  prays  for  it.  I  say,  He 
wills  indeed  according  to  her  prayer,  but  then  she  prays 
according  to  His  will.  Though  then  it  is  natural  and 
prudent  for  those  to  have  recourse  to  her,  who  from  the 
Church’s  teaching  know  her  power,  yet  it  cannot  be 
said  that  devotion  to  her  is  a  sine-quh-non  of  salvation. 
Some  indeed  of  the  authors,  whom  you  quote,  go  fur¬ 
ther  ;  they  do  speak  of  devotion ;  but  even  then,  they 
do  not  enunciate  the  general  proposition  which  I  have 
been  disallowing.  For  instance,  they  say,  ‘‘It  is 
morally  impossible  for  those  to  be  saved  who  neglect 


Excesses  in  Devotion  to  the  Blessed  Virgin.  109 


the  devotion  to  the  Blessed  Virgin”;  but  a  simple 
omission  is  one  thing,  and  neglect  is  another.  “It  is 
impossible  for  any  to  be  saved  who  turn  away  from 
her,  ’  ’  yes  ;  but  to  ‘  ‘  turn  away  ”  is  to  offer  some  positive 
disrespect  or  insult  towards  her,  and  that  with  sufficient 
knowledge  ;  and  I  certainly  think  it  would  be  a  very 
grave  act,  if  in  a  Catholic  country  (and  of  such  the 
writers  were  speaking,  for  they  knew  of  no  other) ,  with 
Ave-Marias  sounding  in  the  air,  and  images  of  the 
Madonna  in  every  street  and  road,  a  Catholic  broke  off 
or  gave  up  a  practice  that  was  universal,  and  in  which 
he  was  brought  up,  and  deliberately  put  her  name  out 
of  his  thoughts. 

7.  Though,  then,  common  sense  may  determine  for 
us,  that  the  line  of  prudence  and  propriety  has  been 
certainly  passed  in  the  instance  of  certain  statements 
about  the  Blessed  Virgin,  it  is  often  not  easy  to  convict 
them  of  definite  error  logically ;  and  in  such  cases 
authority,  if  it  attempt  to  act,  would  be  in  the  position 
which  so  often  happens  in  our  courts  of  law,  when  the 
commission  of  an  offence  is  morally  certain,  but  the 
government  prosecutor  cannot  find  legal  evidence  suffi¬ 
cient  to  insure  conviction.  I  am  not  denying  the  right 
of  sacred  Congregations,  at  their  will,  to  act  peremp¬ 
torily,  and  without  assigning  reasons  for  the  judgment 
they  pass  upon  writers ;  but,  when  they  have  found  it 
inexpedient  to  take  this  severe  course,  perhaps  it  may 
happen  from  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  that  there 
is  no  other  that  they  can  take,  even  if  they  would.  It 
is  wiser  then  for  the  most  part  to  leave  these  excesses 
to  the  gradual  operation  of  public  opinion,  that  is,  to 
the  opinion  of  educated  and  sober  Catholics ;  and  this 
seems  to  me  the  healthiest  way  of  putting  them  down. 
Yet  in  matter  of  fact  I  believe  the  Holy  See  has  inter¬ 
fered  from  time  to  time,  when  devotion  seemed  running 


I  io  Anglican  Misconceptions  and  Catholic 

into  superstition ;  and  not  so  long  ago.  I  recollect 
hearing,  in  Gregory  the  XVI.’s  time,  of  books  about 
the  Blessed  Virgin  which  had  been  suppressed  by 
authority ;  and  in  particular  of  a  pictorial  representa¬ 
tion  of  the  Immaculate  Conception  which  he  had  for¬ 
bidden  ;  and  of  measures  taken  against  the  shocking 
notion  that  the  Blessed  Mary  is  present  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist,  in  the  sense  in  which  our  Lord  is  present ; 
but  I  have  no  means  of  verifying  the  information  I  then 
received. 

Nor  have  I  time,  any  more  than  you  have  had,  to 
ascertain  how  far  great  theologians  have  made  protests 
against  these  various  extravagances  of  which  you  so 
rightly  complain.  Passages,  however,  from  three  well- 
known  Jesuit  Fathers  have  opportunely  come  in  my 
way,  and  in  one  of  them  is  introduced  in  confirmation 
the  name  of  the  great  Gerson.  They  are  Canisius, 
Petavius,  and  Raynaudus ;  and  as  they  speak  very 
appositely,  and  you  do  not  seem  to  know  them,  I  will 
here  make  some  extracts  from  them. 

(i.)  Canisius: 

“We  confess  that  in  the  cultns  of  Mary  it  has  been 
and  is  possible  for  corruptions  to  creep  in ;  and  we  have 
a  more  than  ordinary  desire  that  the  Pastors  of  the 
Church  should  be  carefully  vigilant  here,  and  give  no 
place  to  Satan,  whose  characteristic  office  it  has  ever 
been,  while  men  sleep,  to  sow  the  cockle  amid  the 
Lord’s  wheat.  .  .  .  For  this  purpose  it  is  his  wont 

gladly  to  avail  himself  of  the  aid  of  heretics,  fanatics, 
and  false  Catholics,  as  may  be  seen  in  the  instance  of 
this  Marianus  cultus.  This  cultus,  heretics,  suborned 
by  Satan,  attack  with  hostility.  .  .  .  Thus,  too, 

certain  mad  heads  are  so  demented  by  Satan,  as  to 
embrace  superstitions  and  idolatries  instead  of  the  true 
cultus ,  and  neglect  altogether  the  true  measures 


Excesses  in  Devotion  to  the  Blessed  Virgin.  1 1 1 

whether  in  respect  to  God  or  to  Mary.  Such  indeed 
were  the  Collyridians  of  old.  .  .  .  Such  that  Ger¬ 

man  herdsman  a  hundred  years  ago,  who  gave  out 
publicly  that  he  was  a  new  prophet,  and  had  had  a 
vision  of  the  Deipara,  and  told  the  people  in  her  name 
to  pay  no  more  tributes  and  taxes  to  princes.  .  .  . 

Moreover,  how  many  Catholics  does  one  see  who,  by 
great  and  shocking  negligence,  have  neither  care  nor 
regard  for  her  cultas  ;  but,  given  to  profane  and  secular 
objects,  scarce  once  a  year  raise  their  earthly  minds  to 
sing  her  praises  or  to  venerate  her.” — De  Maria 
Deipara ,  p.  518. 

(2.)  Father  Petau  says,  when  discussing  the  teaching 
of  the  Fathers  about  the  Blessed  Virgin  {De  Incarn. 
xiv.  8  ) : 

‘  ‘  I  will  venture  to  give  this  advice  to  all  who  would 
be  devout  and  panegyrical  towards  the  Holy  Virgin, 
viz.,  not  to  exceed  in  their  piety  and  devotion  to  her, 
but  to  be  content  with  true  and  solid  praises,  and  to 
cast  aside  what  is  otherwise.  This  kind  of  idolatry, 
lurking,  as  St.  Augustine  says,  nay  implanted  in  human  • 
hearts,  is.  greatly  abhorrent  from  Theology,  that  is, 
from  the  gravity  of  heavenly  wisdom,  which  never 
thinks  or  asserts  anything  but  what  is  measured  by 
certain  and  accurate  rules.  What  that  rule  should 
be,  and  what  caution  is  to  be  used  in  our  present 
subject,  I  will  not  determine  of  myself ;  but  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  mind  of  a  most  weighty  and  most  learned 
theologian,  John  Gerson,  who  in  one  of  his  Epistles 
proposes  certain  canons,  which  he  calls  truths,  by 
means  of  which  are  to  be  measured  the  assertions  of 
theologians  concerning  the  Incarnation.  .  „  .  By 

these  truly  golden  precepts  Gerson  brings  within 
bounds  the  immoderate  license  of  praising  the  Blessed 
Virgin,  and  restrains  it  within  the  measure  of  sober  and 


1 12 


Anglican  Misconceptions  and  Catholic 


healthy  piety.  And  from  these  it  is  evident  that  that 
sort  of  reasoning  is  frivolous  and  nugatory,  in  which  so 
many  indulge,  in  order  to  assign  any  sort  of  grace  they 
please,  however  unusual,  to  the  Blessed  Virgin.  For 
they  argue  thus  :  ‘  Whatever  the  Son  of  God  could 
bestow  for  the  glory  of  His  Mother,  that  it  became  Him 
in  fact  to  furnish  ’  ;  or  again,  ‘  Whatever  honors  or 
ornaments  He  has  poured  out  on  other  saints,  those 
altogether  hath  He  heaped  upon  His  Mother  ’ ;  whence 
they  draw  their  chain  of  reasoning  to  their  desired  con¬ 
clusion  ;  a  mode  of  argumentation  which  Gerson  treats 
with  contempt  as  captious  and  sophistical.” 

He  adds,  what  of  course  we  all  should  say,  that,  in 
thus  speaking,  he  has  no  intention  to  curtail  the  liberty 
of  pious  persons  in  such  meditations  and  conjectures,  on 
the  mysteries  of  faith,  sacred  histories,  and  the  Scripture 
text,  as  are  of  the  nature  of  comments,  supplements, 
and  the  like. 

(3.)  Raynaud  is  an  author  full  of  devotion,  if  any 
one  is  so,  to  the  Blessed  Virgin  ;  yet  in  the  work  which 

he  has  composed  in  her  honor  (. Diptycha  Mariana) ,  he 

* 

says  more  than  I  can  quote  here,  to  the  same  purpose 
as  Petau.  I  abridge  some  portions  of  his  text : 

“Fet  this  be  taken  for  granted,  that  no  praises  of 
ours  can  come  up  to  the  praises  due  to  the  Virgin 
Mother.  But  we  must  not  make  up  for  our  inability  to 
reach  her  true  praise,  by  a  supply  of  lying  embellish¬ 
ment  and  false  honors.  For  there  are  some  whose  af¬ 
fection  for  religious  objects  is  so  imprudent  and  lawless, 
that  they  transgress  the  due  limits  even  towards  the 
saints.  This  Origen  has  excellently  observed  upon  in 
the  case  of  the  Baptist,  for  very  many,  instead  of  observ¬ 
ing  the  measure  of  charity,  considered  whether  he 
might  not  be  the  Christ”  (p.  9).  .  .  .  St.  An¬ 

selm,  the  first,  or  one  of  the  first  champions  of  the 


Excesses  in  Devotion  to  the  Blessed  Virgin.  1 1 3 

public  celebration  of  the  Blessed  Virgin’s  Immaculate 
Conception,  says,  De  Excell.  Virg .,  that  the  Church 
considers  it  indecent  that  anything  that  admits  of 
doubt  should  be  said  in  her  praise,  when  the  things 
which  are  certainly  true*  of  her  supply  such  large 
materials  for  laudation.  It  is  right  so  to  interpret  St. 
Epiphanius  also,  when  he  says  that  human  tongues 
should  not  pronounce  anything  lightly  of  the  Deipara  ; 
and  who  is  more  justly  to  be  charged  with  speaking 
lightly  of  the  most  Holy  Mother  of  God,  than  he  who, 
as  if  what  is  certain  and  evident  did  not  suffice  for  her 
full  investiture,  is  wiser  than  the  aged,  and  obtrudes 
on  us  the  toadstools  of  his  own  mind,  and  devotions  un¬ 
heard  of  by  those  Holy  Fathers  who  loved  her  best  ? 
Plainly,  as  St.  Anselm  says,  that  she  is  the  Mother  of 
God,  this  by  itself  exceeds  every  elevation  which  can 
be  named  or  imagined,  short  of  God.  About  so  sub¬ 
lime  a  majesty  we  should  not  speak  hastily  from  pruri¬ 
ence  of  wit,  or  flimsy  pretext  of  promoting  piety  ;  but 
with  great  maturity  of  thought ;  and  whenever  the 
maxims  of  the  Church  and  the  oracles  of  faith  do  not 
suffice,  then  not  without  the  suffrages  of  the  Doctors. 

.  Those  who  are  subject  to  this  prurience  of 
innovation,  do  not  perceive  how  broad  is  the  difference 
between  subjects  of  human  science,  and  heavenly 
things.  All  novelty  concerning  the  objects  of  our  faith 
is  to  be  put  far  away ;  except  so  far  as  by  diligent  in¬ 
vestigation  of  God’s  Word,  written  and  unwritten,  and 
a  well-founded  inference  from  what  is  thence  to  be 
elicited,  something  is  brought  to  light  which,  though 
already  indeed  there,  has  not  hitherto  been  recognized. 
The  innovations  which  we  condemn  are  those  which 
rest  neither  on  the  written  nor  unwritten  Word,  nor  on 
conclusions  from  it,  nor  on  the  judgment  of  ancient 
sages,  nor  sufficient  basis  of  reason,  but  on  the  sole 


H4 


Anglican  Misconceptions  and  Catholic 


color  and  pretext  of  doing  more  honor  to  the  Deipara  ” 
(p.  io). 

In  another  portion  of  the  same  work,  he  speaks  in 
particular  of  one  of  those  imaginations  to  which  you 
especially  refer,  and  for  which,  without  strict  necessity 
(as  it  seems  to  .  me),  you  allege  the  authority  of  a 
Eapide. 

“  Nor  is  that  honor  of  the  Deipara  to  be  offered,  viz., 
that  the  elements  of  the  body  of  Christ,  which  the 
Blessed  Virgin  supplied  to  it,  remain  perpetually  un¬ 
altered  in  Christ,  and  thereby  are  found  also  in  the 
Eucharist.  .  .  .  This  solicitude  for  the  Virgin’s 

glory  must,  I  consider,  be  discarded  ;  since,  if  rightly 
considered,  it  involves  an  injury  towards  Christ,  and 
such  honor  the  Virgin  lovetli  not.  And  first,  dismiss¬ 
ing  philosophical  bagatelles  about  the  animation  of 
blood,  milk,  etc.,  who  can  endure  the  proposition  that  a 
good  portion  of  the  substance  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist 
should  be  worshipped  with  a  cultus  less  than  latria  f 
viz.,  by  the  inferior  cultus  of  hyperdulia  f  The  prefer¬ 
able  class  of  theologians  contend  that  not  even  tlie  hu- 
inanity  of  Christ,  is  to  be  materially  abstracted  from  the 
Word  of  God,  and  worshipped  by  itself;  how  then  shall 
we  introduce  a  cultus  of  the  Deipara  in  Christ,  which  is 
inferior  to  the  cultus  proper  to  H  im  ?  How  is  this  other 
than  a  casting  down  of  the  substance  of  Christ  from  His 
Royal  Throne,  and  a  degradation  of  it  to  some  inferior 
sitting  place  ?  It  is  nothing  to  the  purpose  to  refer  to 
such  Fathers  as  say  that  the  flesh  of  Christ  is  the  flesh 
of  Mary,  for  they  speak  of  its  origin.  What  will 
hinder,  if  this  doctrine  be  admitted,  our  also  admitting 
that  there  is  something  in  Christ  which  is  detestable? 
for,  as  the  first  elements  of  a  body  which  were  com¬ 
municated  by  the  Virgin  to  Christ,  have  (as  these 
authors  say)  remained  perpetually  in  Christ,  so  the 


Excesses  in  Devotion  to  the  Blessed  Virgin .  1 1 5 


same  materia ,  at  least  in  part,  which  belonged  origin¬ 
ally  to  the  ancestors  of  Christ,  came  down  to  the  Virgin 
from  her  father,  unchanged,  and  taken  from  her  grand¬ 
father,  and  so  on.  And  thus,  since  it  is  not  unlikely 
that  some  of  these  ancestors  were  reprobate,  there 
would  now  be  something  actually  in  Christ  which  had 
belonged  to  a  reprobate,  and  worthy  of  detestation” 

(p-  237)- 

8.  After  such  explanation,  and  with  such  authorities, 
to  clear  my  path,  I  put  away  from  me,  as  you  would 
wish,  without  any  hesitation,  as  matters  in  which  my 
heart  and  reason  have  no  part  (when  taken  in  their 
literal  and  absolute  sense,  as  any  Protestant  would 
naturally  take  them,  and  as  the  writers  doubtless  did 
not  use  them),  such  sentences,  and  phrases,  as  these: 
that  the  mercy  of  Mary  is  infinite  ;  that  God  has  re¬ 
signed  into  her  hands  His  omnipotence  ;  that  it  is  safer 
to  seek  her  than  to  seek  her  Son ;  that  the  Blessed 
Virgin  is  superior  to  God  ;  that  our  Lord  is  subject  to 
her  command ;  that  His  present  disposition  towards 
sinners,  as  well  as  his  Father's,  is  to  reject  them,  while 
the  Blessed  Mary  takes  His  place  as  an  Advocate  with 
Father  and  Son  ;  that  the  Saints  are  more  ready  to  in¬ 
tercede  with  Jesus  than  Jesus  with  the  Father;  that 
Mary  is  the  only  refuge  of  those  with  whom  God  is 
angry;  that  Mary  alone  can  obtain  a  Protestant’s  con¬ 
version  ;  that  it  would  have  sufficed  for  the  salvation  of 
men  if  our  Lord  had  died,  not  in  order  to  obey  His 
Father,  but  to  defer  to  the  decree  of  His  Mother;  that 
she  rivals  our  Lord  in  being  God’s  daughter,  not  by 
adoption,  but  by  a  kind  of  nature ;  that  Christ  fulfilled 
the  office  of  Saviour  by  imitating  her  virtues  ;  that,  as 
the  Incarnate  God  bore  the  image  of  His  Father,  so  He 
bore  the  image  of  His  Mother ;  that  redemption  derived 


1 1 6  Anglican  Misconceptions  and  Catholic 

from  Christ  indeed  its  sufficiency,  but  from  Mary  its 
beauty  and  loveliness  ;  that,  as  we  are  clothed  with  the 
merits  of  Christ,  so  we  are  clothed  with  the  merits  of 
Mary ;  that,  as  He  is  Priest,  in  a  like  sense  is  she 
Priestess ;  that  His  Body  and  Blood  in  the  Eucharist 
are  truly  hers  and  appertain  to  her  ;  that  as  He  is  pres¬ 
ent  and  received  therein,  so  is  she  present  and  received 
therein ;  that  Priests  are  ministers  as  of  Christ,  so  of 
Mary  ;  that  elect  souls  are  born  of  God  and  Mary  ;  that 
the  Holy  Ghost  brings  into  fruitfulness  His  action  by 
her,  producing  in  her  and  by  her  Jesus  Christ  in  His 
members  ;  that  the  kingdom  of  God  in  our  souls,  as  our 
Eord  speaks,  is  really  the  kingdom  of  Mary  in  the  soul; 
that  she  and  the  Holy  Ghost  produce  in  the  soul  extra¬ 
ordinary  things ;  and  that  when  the  Holy  Ghost  finds 
Mary  in  a  soul  He  flies  there. 

Sentiments  such  as  these  I  freely  surrender  to  your 
animadversion ;  I  never  knew  of  them  till  I  read  your 
book,  nor,  as  I  think,  do  the  vast  majority  of  English 
Catholics  know  them.  They  seem  to  me  like  a  bad 
dream.  I  could  not  have  conceived  them  to  be  said.  I 
know  not  to  what  authority  to  go  for  them,  to  Scrip¬ 
ture,  or  to  the  Fathers,  or  to  the  decrees  of  Councils, 
or  to  the  consent  of  schools,  or  to  the  tradition  of  the 
faithful,  or  to  the  Holy  See,  or  to  Reason.  They  defy 
all  the  loci  theologici.  There  is  nothing  of  them  in  the 
Missal,  in  the  Roman  Catechism,  in  the  Roman  Rac- 
colta ,  in  the  Imitation  of  Christ,  in  Gother,  Challoner, 
Milner,  or  Wiseman,  as  far  as  I  am  aware.  They  do 
but  scare  and  confuse  me.  I  should  not  be  holier,  more 
spiritual,  more  sure  of  perseverance,  if  I  twisted  my 
moral  being  into  the  reception  of  them ;  I  should  but  be 
guilty  of  fulsome  frigid  flattery  towards  the  most  up¬ 
right  and  noble  of  God’s  creatures,  if  I  professed  them, 
and  of  stupid  flattery  too ;  for  it  would  be  like  the  com- 


Excesses  in  Devotion  to  the  Blessed  Virgin .  I  I 7 


pliment  of  painting  up  a  young  and  beautiful  princess 
with  the  brow  of  a  Plato  and  the  muscle  of  an  Achilles. 
And  I  should  expect  her  to  tell  one  of  her  people  in 
waiting  to  turn  me  off  her  service  without  warning. 
Whether  thus  to  feel  be  the  scandalum  parvulorum  in 
my  case,  or  the  scandalum  PhariscBorum ,  I  leave  others 
to  decide ;  but  I  will  say  plainly  that  I  had  rather 
believe  (which  is  impossible)  that  there  is  no  God  at 
all,  than  that  Mary  is  greater  than  God.  I  will  have 
nothing  to  do  with  statements  which  can  only  be  ex¬ 
plained  by  being  explained  away.  I  do  not,  however, 
speak  of  these  statements,  as  they  are  found  in  their 
authors,  for  I  know  nothing  of  the  originals,  and  can¬ 
not  believe  that  they  have  meant  what  you  say ;  but  I 
take  them  as  they  lie  in  your  pages.  Were  any  of  them 
the  sayings  of  Saints  in  ecstasy,  I  should  know  they 
had  a  good  meaning ;  still  I  should  not  repeat  them 
myself ;  but  I  am  looking  at  them,  not  as  spoken  by 
the  tongues  of  Angels,  but  according  to  that  literal 
sense  which  they  bear  in  the  mouths  of  English  men 
and  English  women.  And,  as  spoken  by  man  to  man, 
in  England,  in  the  nineteenth  century,  I  consider  them 
calculated  to  prejudice  inquirers,  to  frighten  the  un- 
*  learned,  to  unsettle  consciences,  to  provoke  blasphemy, 
and  to  work  the  loss  of  souls.* 

*  As  another  and  recent  instance  of  the  jealousy  with  which  the  Holy  See 
preserves  the  bounds  within  which  both  tradition  and  theology  confine  the 
cultus  of  the  Blessed  Virgin,  I  refer  to  a  Decree  of  February  28,  1875,  ad¬ 
dressed  to  the  Bishop  of  Presmilia,  in  which  the  title  of  “  Queen  of  the 
Heart  of  Jesus,”  as  well  as  a  certain  novelty  in  the  representation  of 
Madonna  and  Child,  as  in  use  in  a  certain  Sodality,  are  condemned,  on  the 
ground  that  they  may  be  understood  in  a  sense  inconsistent  with  the  true 
faith.  It  will  be  found  in  the  Irish  Ecclesiastical  Record  for  April,  1875. 

The  Bishop  had  forbidden  the  above  innovations,  and  the  Sacred  Con¬ 
gregation,  “  to  which  the  examination  of  the  matter  was  committed  by  the 
Holy  Father,”  says  to  the  Bishop,  it  cannot  but  “acknowledge  and  praise 
your  Excellency’s  zeal  and  care  in  defending  the  purity  of  the  faith,  espe- 


i  1 8  Anglican  Misconceptions  and  Catholic 

9.  And  now,  after  having  said  so  much  as  this,  bear 
with  me,  my  dear  friend,  if  I  end  with  an  expostula¬ 
tion.  Have  you  not  been  touching  us  on  a  very  tender 
point  in  a  very  rude  way  ?  Is  it  not  the  effect  of  what 
you  have  said  to  expose  her  to  scorn  and  obloquy  who 
is  dearer  to  us  than  any  other  creature  ?  Have  you 
even  hinted  that  our  love  for  her  is  anything  else  than 
an  abuse  ?  Have  you  thrown  her  one  kind  word  your¬ 
self  all  through  your  book  ?  I  trust  so,  but  I  have  not 
lighted  upon  one.  And  yet  I  know  you  love  her  well. 
Can  you  wonder,  then,  can  I  complain  much,  much  as 
I  grieve,  that  men  should  utterly  misconceive  of  you 
and  are  blind  to  the  fact  that  you  have  put  the  whole 
argument  between  you  and  us  on  a  new  footing ;  and 
that,  whereas  it  was  said  twenty-five  years  ago  in  the 
British  Critic,  ‘  ‘  Till  Rome  ceases  to  be  what  practi¬ 
cally  she  is,  union  is  impossible  between  her  and 
England,”  you  declare  on  the  contrary,  ”  Union  is 


dally  in  these  days,  when  it  seems  not  to  be  held  in  much  account  by  men, 
who,  whatever  their  piety,  are  led  by  a  sovereign  love  of  novelty  to  neglect 
the  danger,  incurred  in  consequence  by  the  simple  among  the  faithful,  of 
deviating  from  the  right  sense  of  piety  and  devotion  by  means  of  strange 
and  foreign  doctrines. 

“  To  obviate  this  danger,”  the  letter  proceeds  to  say,  the  Sacred  Congre¬ 
gation  has  at  other  times  ( nitre  volte)  interposed,  “to  warn  and  reprehend” 
those  who,  by  such  language  about  the  Blessed  Virgin,  “  have  not  suffi¬ 
ciently  conformed  to  the  right  Catholic  sense,”  but  “ascribe  power  to  her, 
as  issuing  from  her  divine  maternity,  beyond  its  due  limits  ;  as  if  this  new 
title  had  brought  her  an  accession  of  greatness  and  glory  hitherto  unknown, 
and,  in  the  notion  of  her  sublime  dignity  hitherto  held  by  the  Church  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Fathers,  there  was  something  still 
wanting,  not  considering  that,  although  she  has  the  greatest  influence 
( possa  moltissimo )  with  her  Son,  still  it  cannot  be  piously  affirmed  that 
she  exercises  command  over  Him  [eserciti  impero)." 

Further,  in  order  apparently  to  mark  the  ministrative  office  of  the 
Blessed  Virgin,  and  her  dependence  as  a  creature  on  her  Son,  “it  has  been 
ruled  by  the  Sovereign  Pontiff  that  the  images  or  pictures  to  be  conse¬ 
crated  to  the  cultus  in  question,  must  represent  the  Virgin  as  carrying  the 
infant  Jesus,  not  placed  before  her  knees,  but  in  her  arms.” 


Excesses  in  Devotion  to  the  Blessed  Virgin.  1 19 


possible ,  as  soon  as  Italy  and  England,  having  the  same 
faith  and  the  same  centre  of  unity,  are  allowed  to  hold 
severally  their  own  theological  opinions  5  ’  ?  They  have 
not  done  you  justice  here  ;  because,  in  truth,  the  honor 
of  our  Eady  is  dearer  to  them  than  the  conversion  of 
England. 

Take  a  parallel  case,  and  consider  how  you  would 
decide  it  yourself.  Supposing  an  opponent  of  a  doc¬ 
trine  for  which  you  so  earnestly  contend,  the  eternity  of 
punishment,  instead  of  meeting  you  with  direct  argu¬ 
ments  against  it,  heaped  together  a  number  of  extrava¬ 
gant  descriptions  of  the  place,  mode,  and  circumstances 
of  its  infliction,  quoted  Tertullian  as  a  witness  for  the 
primitive  Fathers,  and  the  Convenanters  and  Ranters 
for  these  last  centuries ;  brought  passages  from  the 
Inferno  of  Dante,  and  from  the  Sermons  of  Wesley  and 
Whitfield  ;  nay,  supposing  he  confined  himself  to  the 
chapters  on  the  subject  in  the  work,  which  has  the 
sanction  of  Jeremy  Taylor,  on  “  The  State  of  Man,”  or 
to  his  sermon  on  “  The  Foolish  Exchange,”  or  to  par¬ 
ticular  passages  in  Eeighton,  South,  Beveridge,  and 
Barrow,  would  you  think  this  a  fair  and  becoming 
method  of  reasoning  ?  and  if  he  avowed  that  he 
should  ever  consider  the  Anglican  Church  committed 
to  all  these  accessories  of  the  doctrine  till  its  au¬ 
thorities  formally  denounced  Beveridge,  and  Whitfield, 
and  a  hundred  others,  would  you  think  this  an  equit¬ 
able  determination,,  or  the  procedure  of  a  theologian? 

So  far  concerning  the  Blessed  Virgin  ;  the  chief  but 
not  the  only  subject  of  your  volume.  And  now,  when 
I  could  wish  to  proceed,*  she  seems  to  stop  all  contro¬ 
versy,  for  the  Feast  of  her  Immaculate  Conception  is 
upon  us ;  and  close  upon  its  Octave,  which  is  kept  with 

*The  sequel  to  this  letter  never  was  written.  Vid.  supr.,  note  p.  25, 


120  Anglican  Misconceptions  and  Catholic  Excesses. 


special  solemnities  in  the  churches  of  this  town,  come 
the  great  Antiphons,  the  heralds  of  Christmas.  That 
joyful  season,  joyful  for  all  of  us,  while  it  centres  in 
Him  who  then  came  on  earth,  also  brings  before  us  in 
peculiar  prominence  that  Virgin  Mother  who  bore  and 
nursed  Him.  Here  she  is  not  in  the  background,  as  at 
Easter-tide,  but  she  brings  Him  to  us  in  her  arms. 
Two  great  Festivals,  dedicated  to  her  honor,  to-mor- 
iow’s  and  the  Purification,  mark  out  and  keep  the 
ground,  and,  like  the  towers  of  David,  open  the  way  to 
and  fro,  for  the  high  holiday  season  of  the  Prince  of 
Peace.  And  all  along  it  her  image  is  upon  it,  such  as 
we  see  it  in  the  typical  representation  of  the  Catacombs. 
May  the  sacred  influences  of  this  tide  bring  us  all 
together  in  unity !  May  it  destroy  all  bitterness  on 
your  side  and  ours  !  May  it  quench  all  jealous,  sour, 
proud,  fierce  antagonism  on  our  side ;  and  dissipate  all 
captious,  carping,  fastidious  refinements  of  reasoning  on 
yours  !  May  that  bright  and  gentle  Eady,  the  Blessed 
Virgin  Mary,  overcome  you  with  her  sweetness,  and 
revenge  herself  on  her  foes  by  interceding  effectually 
for  their  conversion  ! 

I  am, 

Yours,  most  affectionately, 
JOHN  H.  NEWMAN. 

The  Oratory,  Birmingham, 

Dec.  7,  1865. 


NOTTB 


THE  ANOMALOUS  STATEMENTS  OF  ST.  BASIL,  ST. 
CHRYSOSTOM,  AND  ST.  CYRIL  ABOUT  THE 
BLESSED  VIRGIN. 

I  have  admitted  that  several  great  Fathers  of  the  Church  of  the 
fourth  and  fifth  centuries  speak  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  in  terms 
which  we  never  should  think  of  using  now,  and  which  at  first  sight 
are  inconsistent  with  the  belief  and  sentiment  concerning  her 
which  I  have  ascribed  to  their  times.  These  Fathers  are  St. 
Basil,  St.  Chrysostom,  and  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria;  and  the  occa¬ 
sion  of  their  speaking  is  furnished  by  certain  passages  of  Scripture 
on  which  they  are  commenting.  It  may  in  consequence  be  asked 
of  me,  why  I  do  not  take  these  three,  instead  of  St.  Justin,  St. 
Irenasus,  and  Tertullian,  as  my  authoritative  basis  for  determining 
the  doctrine  of  the  primitive  times  concerning  the  Blessed  Mary: 
why,  instead  of  making  St.  Irenaeus,  etc.,  the  rule,  and  St.  Basil, 
etc.,  the  exception,  I  do  not  make  the  earlier  Fathers  the  excep¬ 
tion,  and  the  latter  the  rule.  Since  I  do  not,  it  may  be  urged 
against  me  that  I  am  but  making  a  case  for  my  own  opinion,  and 
*  playing  the  part  of  an  advocate. 

Now  I  do  not  see  that  it  would  be  illogical  or  nugatory,  though 
I  did  nothing  more  than  make  a  case ;  indeed  I  have  worded  my¬ 
self  in  my  Letter  as  if  I  wished  to  do  little  more.  For  so  much  as 
this  would  surely  be  to  the  purpose,  considering  that  the  majority 
of  Anglicans  have  a  supreme  confidence  that  no  case  whatever 
can  be  made  in  behalf  of  our  doctrine  concerning  the  Blessed 
Virgin  from  the  ancient  Fathers.  I  should  have  gained  a  real 
point  if  I  did  anything  to  destroy  this  imagination  ;  but  I  intend 
to  attempt  something  more  than  this.  I  shall  attempt  to  invali¬ 
date  the  only  grounds  on  which  any  teaching  contrary  to  the 
Catholic  can  be  founded  on  Antiquity. 


I2X 


122 


Note . 


I. 

First,  I  set  down  the  passages  which  create  the  difficulty,  as 
they  are  found  in  the  great  work  of  Petavius,  a  theologian  too 
candid  and  fearless  to  put  out  of  sight  or  explain  away  adverse 
facts,  from  fear  of  scanda1,  or  from  the  expedience  of  controversy. 

1.  St.  Basil  then  writes  thus,  in  his  260th  Epistle,  addressed  to 
Optimus  : 

“  [Symeon]  uses  the  word  ‘sword,’  meaning  the  word  which  is 
tentative  and  critical  of  the  thoughts,  and  reaches  unto  the  separa¬ 
tion  of  soul  and  spirit,  of  the  joints  and  marrow.  Since  then 
every  soul,  at  the  time  of  the  Passion,  was  subjected  in  a  way  to 
someun  settlement  ( diakrisci ),  according  to  the  Lord’s  word,  who 
said,  ‘  All  ye  shall  be  scandalized  in  Me,’  Symeon  prophesies  even 
of  Mary  herself,  that,  standing  by  the  Cross,  and  seeing  what  was 
doing,  and  hearing  the  words,  after  the  testimony  of  Gabriel,  after 
the  secret  knowledge  of  the  divine  conception,  after  the  great 
manifestation  of  miracles,  thou  wilt  experience,  he  says,  a  certain 
tossing  {salos)  of  thy  soul.  For  it  beseemed  the  Lord  to  taste 
death  for  every  one,  and  to  become  a  propitiation  of  the  world,  in 
order  to  justify  all  in  Plis  blood.  And  thee  thyself  who  hast  been 
taught  from  above  the  things  concerning  the  Lord,  some  unsettle¬ 
ment  ( diakrisis )  will  reach.  This  is  the  sword  ;  ‘  that  out  of 
many  hearts  thoughts  may  be  revealed.’  He  obscurely  signifies 
that,  after  the  scandalizing  which  took  place  upon  the  Cross  of 
Christ,  both  to  the  disciples  and  to  Mary  herself,  some  quick  heal¬ 
ing  should  follow  upon  it  from  the  Lord,  confirming  their  heart 
unto  faith  in  Him.” 

2.  St.  Chrysostom,  in  Matth.  Horn.  iv. : 

“  ‘  Wherefore,’  a  man  may  say,  ‘  did  not  the  Angel  do  in  the 
case  of  the  Virgin  [what  he  did  to  Joseph  ?  ’”  viz.,  appear  to  her 
after,  not  before,  the  Incarnation],  “‘why  did  he  not  bring  her  the 
good  tidings  after  her  conception  ?  ’  lest  she  should  be  in  great 
disturbance  and  trouble.  For  the  probability  was,  that,  had  she 
not  known  the  clear  fact,  she  would  have  resolved  something 
strange  ( atopon )  about  herself,  and  had  recourse  to  rope  or  sword, 
not  bearing  the  disgrace.  For  the  Virgin  was  admirable,  and 
Luke  shows  her  virtue  when  he  says  that,  when  she  heard  the 
salutation,  she  did  not  at  once  become  extravagant,  nor  appro¬ 
priated  the  words,  but  was  troubled,  searching  what  was  the 


Note. 


123 


nature  of  the  salutation.  One  then  of  so  refined  a  mind  ( diekri - 
bomene )  would  be  made  beside  herself  with  despondency,  con¬ 
sidering  the  disgrace,  and  not  expecting,  whatever  she  may  say, 
to  persuade  any  one  who  hears  her  that  adultery  had  not  been 
the  fact.  Lest  then  these  things  should  occur,  the  Angel  came 
before  the  conception  ;  for  it  beseemed  that  that  womb  should  be 
without  disorder  which  the  Creator  of  all  entered,  and  that  that 
soul-  should  be  rid  of  all  perturbation  which  was  counted  worthy 
to  become  the  minister  of  such  mysteries.” 

In  Matth.  Horn.  xliv.  (7 rid.  also  in  Joann.  Horn,  xxi.)  : 

“  To-day  we  learn  something  else  even  further,  viz.,  that  not 
even  to  bear  Christ  in  the  womb,  and  to  have  that  wonderful 
childbirth,  has  any  gain  without  virtue.  And  this  is  especially 
true  from  this  passage,  ‘  As  He  was  yet  speaking  to  the  multitude, 
behold  His  Mother  and  His  brethren  stood  without,  seeking  to 
speak  to  Him,’  etc.  This  He  said,  not  as  ashamed  of  His 
Mother,  nor  as  denying  her  who  bore  Him  ;  for,  had  he  been 
ashamed,  He  had  not  passed  through  that  womb  ;  but  as  showing 
that  there  was  no  profit  to  her  thence,  unless  she  did  all  that  was 
necessary.  For  what  she  attempted  came  of  overmuch  love  of 
honor ;  for  she  wished  to  show  to  the  people  that  she  had 
power  and  authority  over  her  Son,  in  nothing  ever  as  yet  having 
given  herself  airs  ( phantazoinene )  about  Him.  Therefore  she 
came  thus  unseasonably.  Observe  then  her  and  their  rashness 
( aponoian ).  .  .  .  Had  He  wished  to  deny  His  Mother, 

then  He  would  have  denied,  when  the  Jews  taunted  Him  with 
her.  But  no  :  He  shows  such  care  of  her  as  to  commit  her  as 
a  legacy  on  the  Cross  itself  to  the  disciple  whom  He  loved  best  of 
all,  and  to  take  anxious  oversight  of  her.  But  does  He  not  do  the 
same  now,  by  caring  for  her  and  His  brethren  ?  .  .  .  And 

consider,  not  only  the  words  which  convey  the  considerate  re¬ 
buke,  but  also  .  .  .  who  He  is  who  utters  it  .  .  .  and 
what  He  aims  at  in  uttering  it ;  not,  that  is,  as  wishing  to  cast 
her  into  perplexity,  but  to  release  her  from  a  most  tyrannical  af¬ 
fection,  and  to  bring  her  gradually  to  the  fitting  thought  concern¬ 
ing  Him,  and  to  persuade  her  that  He  is  not  only  her  Son,  but 
also  her  Master.” 

3.  St.  Cyril,  in  Joann,  lib.  xii.  1064: 

“  How  shall  we  explain  this  passage  ?  He  introduces  both  His 
Mother  and  the  other  women  with  her  standing  at  the  Cross,  and, 


124 


Note. 


as  is  plain,  weeping.  For  somehow  the  race  of  women  is  ever 
fond  of  tears  ;  and  especially  given  to  laments,  when  it  has  rich 
occasions  for  weeping.  How  then  did  they  persuade  the  blessed 
Evangelist  to  be  so  minute  in  his  account,  as  to  make  mention  of 
this  abidance  of  the  women?  For  it  was  his  purpose  to  teach 
even  this,  viz.,  that  probably  eve~  the  Mother  of  the  Lord  herself 
was  scandalized  at  the  unexpected  Passion,  and  that  the  death 
upon  the  Cross,  being  so  very  bitter,  was  near  unsettling  her 
from  her  fitting  mind  ;  and  in  addition  to  this,  the  mockeries  of 
the  Jews,  and  the  soldiers  too,  perhaps,  who  were  sitting  near  the 
Cross  and  making  a  jest  of  Him  who  was  hanging  on  it  and  dar¬ 
ing,  in  the  sight  of  His  very  mother,  the  division  of  His  garments. 
Doubt  not  that  she  admitted  ( eisedexato )  some  such  thoughts 
as  these  :  I  bore  Him  who  is  laughed  at  on  the  wood  ;  but,  in 
saying  He  was  the  true  Son  of  the  Omnipotent  God,  perhaps 
somehow  He  was  mistaken.  He  said  He  was  the  Life,  how  then 
has  He  been  crucified  ?  how  has  he  been  strangled  by  the  cords 
of  His  murderers?  how  prevailed  He  not  over  the  plot  of  His  per¬ 
secutors?  why  descends  He  not  from  the  Cross,  though  He  bade 
Lazarus  to  return  to  life,  and  amazed  all  Judaea  with  His  mira¬ 
cles  ?  And  it  is  very  natural  that  the  woman  in  her  {to  gynaion ), 
not  knowing  the  mystery,  should  slide  into  some  such  trains  of 
thought.  For  we  must  conclude,  if  we  judge  well,  that  the  gravity 
of  the  circumstances  was  enough  to  overturn  even  a  self-possessed 
mind;  it  is  no  wonder  then  if  a  woman  {to  gynaion)  slipped  into 
this  reasoning.  For  if  Peter  himself,  the  chosen  one  of  the  holy 
disciples,  once  was  scandalized  .  .  .  so  as  to  cry  out  hastily. 

Be  it  far  from  Thee,  Lord,  .  .  .  what  paradox  is  it,  if  the  soft 

mind  of  womankind  was  carried  off  to  weak  ideas  ?  And  this  we 
say,  not  idly  conjecturing,  as  it  may  strike  one,  but  entertaining 
the  suspicion  from  what  is  written  concerning  the  Mother  of  the 
Lord.  For  we  remember  that  Simeon  the  Just,  when  he  received 
the  Lord  as  a  little  child  into  his  arms,  .  .  .  said  to  her,  ‘  A 

sword  shall  go  through  thine  own  soul,  that  out  of  many  hearts 
thoughts  may  be  revealed.’  By  sword  he  meant  the  sharp  excess 
of  suffering  cutting  down  a  woman’s  mind  into  extravagant 
thoughts.  For  temptations  test  the  hearts  of  those  who  suffer 
them,  and  make  bare  the  thoughts  which  are  in  them.” 

Now  what  do  these  three  Fathers  say  in  these  passages? 

I.  St.  Basil  imputes  to  the  Blessed  Virgin,  not  only  doubt,  but 


Note. 


125 


the  sin  of  doubt.  On  the  other  hand,  1,  he  imputes  it  only  on  one 
occasion;  2,  he  does  not  consider  it  to  be  a  grave  sin  1.3,  he 
implies  that,  in  point  of  spiritual  perfection,  she  is  above  the 
Apostles. 

2.  St.  Chrysostom,  in  his  first  passage,  does  not  impute  sin  to 
her  at  all.  He  says  God  so  disposed  things  for  her  as  to  shield 
her  from  the  chance  of  sinning;  that  she  was  too  admirable  to 
be  allowed  to  be  betrayed  by  her  best  and  purest  feelings  into  sin. 
All  that  is  implied  repugnant  to  a  Catholic’s  reverence  for  her  is, 
that  her  woman’s  nature,  viewed  in  itself  and  apart  from  the 
watchful  providence  of  God’s  grace  over  her,  would  not  have  had 
strength  to  resist  a  hypothetical  temptation — a  position  which  a 
Catholic  will  not  care  to  affirm  or  deny,  though  he  will  feel  great 
displeasure  at  having  to  discuss  it  at  all.  This,  moreover,  at  least 
is  distinctly  brought  out  in  this  passage,  viz.,  that  in  St.  Chrysos¬ 
tom’s  mind  our  Lady  was  not  a  mere  physical  instrument  of  the 
Incarnation,  but  that  her  soul,  as  well  as  her  body,  “  ministered  to 
the  mystery,”  and  needed  to  be  duly  prepared  for  it. 

As  to  his  second  most  extraordinary  passage,  I  should  not  be 
candid,  unless  I  simply  admitted  that  it  is  as  much  at  variance 
with  what  we  hold,  as  it  is  solitary  and  singular  in  the  writings  of 
Antiquity.  The  saint  distinctly  {pace  illius),  needlessly,  imputes  to 
the  Blessed  Virgin,  on  the  occasion  in  question,  the  sin  or  infirm¬ 
ity  of  vainglory.  He  has  a  parallel  passage  in  commenting  on  the 
miracle  at  the  marriage-feast.  All  that  can  be  said  to  alleviate 
the  startling  character  of  these  passages  is,  that  it  does  not 
appear  that  St.  Chrysostom  would  account  such  vainglory  in  a 
woman  as  any  great  failing. 

3.  Lastly,  as  to  St.  Cyril,  I  do  not  see  that  he  declares  that 
Mary  actually  doubted  at  the  Crucifixion,  but  that,  considering 
she  was  a  woman,  it  is  likely  she  was  tempted  to  doubt,  and  near¬ 
ly  doubted.  Moreover,  St.  Cyril  does,  not  seem  to  consider  such 
doubt,  had  it  occurred,  as  any  great  sin. 

Thus,  on  the  whole,  all  three  Fathers,  St.  Basil  and  St.  Cyril 
explicitly,  and  St.  Chrysostom  by  implication,  consider  that  on 
occasions  she  was,  or  might  be,  exposed  to  violent  temptation  to 
doubt ;  but  two  Fathers  consider  that  she  actually  did  sin,  though 
she  sinned  lightly — the  sin  being  doubt,  and  on  one  occasion, 
according  to  St.  Basil ;  and  on  two  occasions,  the  sin  being  vain¬ 
glory,  according  to  St.  Chrysostom. 


126 


Note. 


However,  the  strong  language  of  these  Fathers  is  not  directed 
against  our  Lady’s  person,  so  much  as  against  her  nature.  They 
seem  to  have  participated  with  Ambrose,  Jerome,  and  other 
Fathers,  in  that  low  estimation  of  woman’s  nature  which  was 
general  in  their  times.  In  the  broad  imperial  world,  the  concep¬ 
tion  entertained  of  womankind  was  not  high ;  it  seemed  only  to 
perpetuate  the  poetical  tradition  of  the  “  Varium  et  mutabile  sem¬ 
per.”  Little  was  then  known  of  that  true  nobility,  which  is  exem¬ 
plified  in  the  females  of  the  Gothic  and  German  races,  and  in 
those  of  the  old  Jewish  stock,  Miriam,  Deborah,  Judith,  and 
Susanna,  the  forerunners  of  Mary.  When  then  St.  Chrysostom 
imputes  vainglory  to  her,  he  is  not  imputing  to  her  anything  worse 
than  an  infirmity,  the  infirmity  of  a  nature  inferior  to  man’s,  and 
intrinsically  feeble  ;  as  though  the  Almighty  could  have  created 
a  more  excellent  being  than  Mary,  but  could  not  have  made  a 
greater  woman.  Accordingly  Chrysostom  does  not  say  that  she 
sinned.  He  does  not  deny  that  she  had  all  the  perfections  which 
woman  could  have  ;  but  he  seems  to  have  thought  the  capabilities 
of  her  nature  were  bounded,  so  that  the  utmost  grace  bestowed 
upon  it  could  not  raise  it  above  that  standard  of  perfection  in 
which  its  elements  resulted,  and  that  to  attempt  more  would  have 
been  to  injure,  not  to  benefit  it.  Of  course  I  am  not  stating  this 
as  brought  out  in  any  part  of  his  writings,  but  it  seems  to  me  to  be 
the  real  sentiment  of  many  of  the  ancients. 

I  will  add  that  such  a  belief  on  the  part  of  these  Fathers,  that 
the  Blessed  Virgin  had  committed  a  sin  or  a  weakness,  was  not 
in  itself  inconsistent  with  the  exercise  of  love  and  devotion  to  -her 
(though  I  am  not  pretending  that  there  is  proof  of  any  such  exer¬ 
cise  on  their  part  in  fact)  ;  and  for  this  simple  reason,  that  if  sin¬ 
lessness  were  a  condition  of  inspiring  devotion,  we  should  not  feel 
devotion  to  any  but  our  Lady,  not  to  St.  Joseph,  or  to  the  Apos¬ 
tles,  or  to  our  Patron  Saints. 

Such  then  is  the  teaching  of  these  three  Fathers;  now  how  far 
is  it  in  antagonism  to  ours  ?  On  the  one  hand,  we  will  not  allow 
that  our  Blessed  Lady  ever  sinned ;  we  cannot  bear  the  notion, 
entering,  as  we  do,  into  the  full  spirit  of  St.  Augustine’s  words : 
“  Concerning  the  Holy  Virgin  Mary,  I  wish  no  question  to  be 
raised  at  all,  when  we  are  treating  of  sins.”  On  the  other  hand, 
we  admit,  rather  we  maintain,  that,  except  for  the  grace  of  God, 


Note. 


12; 


she  might  have  sinned  ;  and  that  she  may  have  been  exposed  to 
temptation  in  the  sense  in  which  our  Lord  was  exposed  to  it, 
though  as  His  Divine  Nature  made  it  impossible  for  Him  to  yield 
to  it,  so  His  grace  preserved  her  under  its  assaults  also.  While 
then  we  do  not  hold  that  St.  Simeon  prophesied  of  temptation, 
when  he  said  a  sword  would  pierce  her,  still,  if  any  one  likes  to 
say  he  did,  we  do  not  consider  him  heretical,  provided  he  does  not 
impute  to  her  any  sinful  or  inordinate  emotion  as  the  consequence 
to  it.  In  this' way  St.  Cyril  may  be  let  off  altogether;  and  we 
have  only  to  treat  of  the  paradoxa  or  anomala  of  those  great 
Saints,  St.  Basil  and  St.  Chrysostom.  I  proceed  to  their  contro¬ 
versial  value. 

II. 

I  mean,  that  having  determined  what  the  three  Fathers  say, 
and  how  far  they  are  at  issue  with  what  Catholics  hold  now,  I 
now  come  to  the  main  question,  viz.,  What  is  the  authoritative 
force  in  controversy  of  what  they  thus  say  in  opposition  to  Catho¬ 
lic  teaching  ?  I  think  I  shall  be  able  to  show  that  it  has  no  con¬ 
troversial  force  at  all. 

I.  I  begin  by  observing,  that  the  main  force  of  passages  which 
can  be  brought  from  any  Father  or  Fathers  in  controversy,  lies  in 
the  fact  that  such  passages  represent  the  judgment  or  sentiment 
of  their  own  respective  countries ;  and  again,  I  say  that  the  force 
of  that  local  judgment  or  sentiment  lies  in  its  being  the  existing 
expression  of  an  Apostolical  tradition.  I  am  far,  of  course,  from 
denying  the  claim  of  the  teaching  of  a  Father  on  our  deference, 
arising  out  of  his  personal  position  and  character;  or  the  claims 
of  the  mere  sentiments  of  a  Christian  population  on  our  careful 
attention,  as  a  fact  carrying  with  it,  under  circumstances,  especial 
weight ;  but,  in  a  question  of  doctrine,  we  must  have  recourse 
to  the  great  source  of  doctrine,  Apostolical  Tradition,  and  a 
Father  must  represent  his  own  people,  and  that  people  must  be 
the  witnesses  of  an  uninterrupted  Tradition  from  the  Apostles,  if 
anything  decisive  is  to  come  of  any  theological  statement  which  is 
found  in  his  writings  ;  and  if,  in  a  particular  case,  there  is  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  he  does  echo  the  popular  voice,  or  that 
that  popular  voice  is  transmitted  from  Apostolic  times,  or  (to  take 
another  channel  of  Tradition)  unless  the  Father  in  question 
receives  and  reports  his  doctrine  from  the  Bishops  and  priests 


128 


Note. 


who  instructed  him  on  the  very  understanding  and  profession  that 
it  is  Apostolical,  then,  though  it  was  not  one  Father  but  ten  who 
said  a  thing,  it  would  weigh  nothing  against  the  assertion  of  only 
one  Father  to  the  contrary,  provided  it  was  clear  that  that  one 
Father  witnessed  to  an  Apostolical  Tradition.  Now  I  do  not  say 
that  I  can  decide  the  question  by  this  issue  with  all  the  exactness 
which  is  conceivable,"  but  still  this  is  the  issue  by  which  it  must  be 
tried,  and  the  issue  by  which  I  shall  be  enabled,  as  I  think,  to 
come  to  a  satisfactory  conclusion  upon  it. 

2.  Such,  I  say,  being  the  issue,  viz.,  that  a  doctrine  reported  by 
the  Fathers,  in  order  to  have  dogmatic  force,  must  be  a  tradition 
in  its  source  or  form  ;  next,  what  is  a  Tradition,  considered  in  its 
matter ?  It  is  a  belief,  which,  be  it  affirmative  or  negative , 
is  positive.  The  mere  absence  of  a  tradition  in  a  country  is  not  a 
tradition  the  other  way.  If,  for  instance,  there  was  no  tradition 
in  Syria  and  Asia  Minor  that  the  phrase  “  consubstantial  with  the 
Father ’’came  from  the  Apostles,  that  would  not  be  a  tradition 
that  it  did  not  come  from  the  Apostles ;  though  of  course  it  would 
be  necessary  for  those  who  said  that  it  did,  to  account  for  the 
ignorance  of  those  countries  as  to  the  real  fact. 

3.  The  proposition  “  Christ  is  God,”  serves  as  an  example  of 
what  I  mean  by  an  affirmative  tradition ;  and  “  no  one  born  of 
woman  is  born  in  God’s  favor,”  is  an  example  of  a  negative  tradi¬ 
tion.  I  observe  then,  in  the  third  place,  that  a  tradition  does  not 
carry  its  own  full  explanation  with  it ;  it  does  but  land  (so  to  say) 
a  proposition  at  the  feet  of  the  Apostles,  and  its  interpretation  has 
still  to  be  determined,  as  the  Apostles’  words  in  Scripture,  how¬ 
ever  much  theirs,  need  an  interpretation.  Thus  I  may  accept  the 
above  negative  Tradition,  that  “  no  one  woman-born  is  bom  in 
God’s  favor,”  yet  question  its  strict  universality,  as  a  point  of  criti¬ 
cism,  saying  that  a  general  proposition  admits  of  exceptions,  that 
our  Lord  was  born  of  woman,  yet  was  the  sinless  and  acceptable 
priest  and  sacrifice  for  all  men.  So  again  the  Arians  allowed 
that  “  Christ  was  God,”  but  they  disputed  about  the  meaning  of 
the  word  “  God.” 

4.  Further,  there  are  explicit  traditions  and  implicit.  By  an 
explicit  tradition  I  mean  a  doctrine  which  is  conveyed  in  the  letter 
of  the  proposition  which  has  been  handed  down  ;  and  by  implicit, 
one  which  lies  in  the  force  and  virtue,  not  in  the  letter  of  the 
proposition.  Thus  it  might  be  an  Apostolical  tradition  that  our 


129 


Note. 


Lord  was  the  very  Son  of  God,  of  one  nature  with  the  Father, 
and  in  all  things  equal  to  Him  ;  and  again  a  tradition  that  there 
was  but  one  God :  these  would  be  explicit,  but  in  them  would 
necessarily  be  conveyed,  moreover,  the  implicit  tradition  that  the 
Father  and  the  Son  were  numerically  one.  Implicit  traditions  are 
positive  traditions,  as  being  strictly  conveyed  in  positive. 

5.  Lastly,  there  are  at  least  two  ways  of  determining  an  Apos¬ 
tolical  tradition  :  (1.)  When  credible  witnesses  declare  that  it  is 
Apostolical;  as  when  three  hundred  Fathers  at  Nicasa  stopped 
their  ears  at  Arius’s  blasphemies :  (2.)  When,  in  various  places, 
independent  witnesses  enunciate  one  and  the  same  doctrine,  as 
St.  Irenaeus,  St.  Cyprian,  and  Eusebius  assert  that  the  Apostles 
founded  a  Church,  Catholic  and  One. 

III. 

Now  to  apply  these  principles  to  the  particular  case  on  account 
of  which  I  have  laid  them  down. 

1.  That  “  Mary  is  the  new  Eve,”  is  a  proposition  answering  to 
the  idea  of  a  Tradition.  I  am  not  prepared  to  say  that  it  can  be 
shown  to  have  the  first  of  the  above  two  tests  of  its  Apostolicity, 
viz.,  that  the  writers  who  record  it,  profess  to  have  received  it 
from  the  Apostles  ;  but  I  conceive  it  has  the  second  test,  viz.,  that 
the  writers  are  independent  witnesses,  as  I  have  shown  at  length 
in  the  course  of  my  Letter. 

It  is  an  explicit  tradition ;  and  by  the  force  of  it  follow  two 
others,  which  are  implicit — first  (considering  the  condition  of  Eve 
in  Paradise),  that  Mary  had  no  part  in  sin,  and  indefinitely  large 
measures  of  grace;  secondly  (considering  the  doctrine  of  merits), 
that  she  has  been  exalted  to  glory  proportionate  to  that  grace. 

This  is  what  I  have  to  observe  on  the  argument  in  behalf  of  the 
Blessed  Virgin.  St.  Justin,  St.  Irenaeus,  Tertullian,  are  witnesses 
of  an  Apostolical  tradition,  because  in  three  distinct  parts  of  the 
world  they  enunciate  one  and  the  same  definite  doctrine.  And  it 
is  remarkable  that  they  witness  just  for  those  three  seats  of 
Catholic  teaching  where  the  truth  in  this  matter  was  likely  to  be 
especially  lodged.  St.  Justin  speaks  for  Jerusalem,  the  see  of  St. 
James;  St.  Irenaeus  for  Ephesus,  the  dwelling-place,  the  place  of 
burial,  of  St.John;  and  Tertullian,  who  made  a  long  residence 
at  Rome,  for  the  city  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul. 


130 


Note . 


2.  Now,  what  can  be  produced  on  the  other  side,  parallel  to  an 
argument  like  this  ?  A  tradition  in  its  matter  is  a  positive  state¬ 
ment  of  belief ;  in  its  form  it  is  a  statement  which  comes  from 
the  Apostles:  (i.)  Now,  first  in  point  of  matter,  what  definite 
statement  of  belief  at  all,  is  witnessed  to  by  St.  Basil,  St.  Chry¬ 
sostom,  and  St.  Cyril  ?  I  cannot  find  any.  They  do  but  interpret 
certain  passages  in  the  Gospels  to  our  Lady’s  disadvantage  ;  is 
an  interpretation  a  distinct  statement  of  belief?  but  even  if  it 
was,  there  is  no  joint  interpretation  in  this  case ;  they  do  not  all 
three  interpret  one  and  the  same  passage.  Nor  do  they  agree 
together  in  their  interpretation  of  those  passages,  which  either 
one  or  other  of  them  interprets  so  harshly;  for,  while  St.  Chry¬ 
sostom  holds  that  our  Lord  spoke  in  correction  of  His  Mother 
at  the  wedding-feast,  St.  Cyril  on  the  contrary  says  that  He 
wrought  a  miracle  which  He  was  Himself  unwilling  to  work,  in 
order  to  show  “  reverence  to  His  Mother,”  and  that  she  “  having 
great  authority  for  the  working  of  the  miracle  got  the  victory, 
persuading  the  Lord,  as  being  her  Son,  as  was  fitting.”  But, 
taking  the  statements  which  are  in  her  disparagement  as  we 
find  them,  can  we  generalize  them  into  one  proposition  ?  Shall 
we  make  it  such  as  this,  viz.,  “  The  Blessed  Virgin  during  her 
earthly  life  committed  actual  sin  ”  ?  If  we  mean  by  this,  that 
there  was  a  positive  recognition  of  such  a  proposition  in  the 
country  of  St.  Basil  or  St.  Chrysostom,  this  surely  is  not  to  be 
gathered  merely  from  their  separate  and  independent  comments 
on  passages  from  Scripture.  All  that  can  be  gathered  thence 
legitimately  is,  that,  had  there  been  a  positive  belief  in  her  sin¬ 
lessness  in  those  countries,  the  Fathers  in  question  would  not 
have  spoken  of  her  in  the  terms  which  they  have  used  ;  in  other 
words,  that  there  was  no  belief  in  her  sinlessness  then  and  there  ; 
but  the  absence  of  a  belief  is  not  a  belief  to  the  contrary,  it  is 
not  that  positive  statement,  which,  as  I  have  said,  is  required  for 
the  matter  of  a  tradition. 

(2.)  Nor  do  the  passages  which  I  have  quoted  from  these 
Fathers,  supply  us  with  any  tradition,  viewed  in  its  form,  that  is, 
as  a  statement  which  has  come  down  from  the  Apostles.  I  have 
suggested  two  tests  of  such  a  statement :  one,  when  the  writers 
who  make  it  so  declare  that  it  was  from  the  Apostles  ;  and  the 
other  when,  being  independent  of  one  another,  they  bear  witness 
to  one  and  the  same  positive  statement  of  doctrine.  Neither 


Note. 


*3i 

test  is  fulfilled  in  this  case.  The  three  Fathers  of  the  fourth  and 
fifth  centuries  are  but  commenting  on  Scripture  ;  and  comments, 
though  carrying  with  them  of,  course,  and  betokening,  the  tone 
of  thought  of  the  place  and  time  to  which  they  belong,  are, 
prima  facie ,  of  a  private  and  personal  character.  If  they  are 
more  than  this,  the  onus  frobandi  lies  with  those  who  so  main¬ 
tain.  Exegetical  theology  is  one  department  of  divine  science, 
and  dogmatic  is  another.  On  the  other  hand,  the  three  Fathers 
of  the  second  century  are  all  writing  on  dogmatic  subjects,  when 
they  compare  Mary  to  Eve. 


IV. 

Now  to  take  the  three  later  Fathers,  viewed  as  organs  of 
tradition,  one  by  one  : 

1.  As  to  St.  Cyril,  as  I  have  said,  he  does  not,  strictly  speaking, 
say  more  than  that  our  Lady  was  grievously  tempted.  This 
does  not  imply  sin,  for  our  Lord  was  “  tempted  in  all  things  like 
as  we  are,  yet  without  sin.”  Moreover,  it  is  this  St.  Cyril  who 
spoke  at  Ephesus  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  in  terms  of  such  high 
panegyric,  as  to  make  it  more  consistent  in  him  to  suppose  that 
she  was  sinless  than  that  she  was  not. 

2.  St.  Basil  derives  his  notion  from  Origen,  that  the  Blessed 
Virgin  at  the  time  of  the  Passion  admitted  a  doubt  about  our 
Lord’s  mission,  and  Origen,  so  far  from  professing  to  rest  it  on 
Tradition,  draws  it  as  a  theological  conclusion  from  a  received 
doctrine.  Origen’s  characteristic  fault  was  to  prefer  scientific 
reasonings  to  authority  ;  and  he  exemplifies  it  in  the  case  before 
us,  In  the  middle  age,  the  great  obstacle  to  the  reception  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Blessed  Mary’s  immaculate  conception,  was  the 
notion  that,  unless  she  had  been  in  some  sense  a  sinner,  she  could 
not  have  been  redeemed.  By  an  argument  parallel  to  this,  Origen 
argues,  that  since  she  was  one  of  the  redeemed,  she  must  at  one 
time  or  another  have  committed  an  actual  sin.  He  says  :  “  Are 
we  to  think,  that  the  Apostles  were  scandalized,  and  not  the 
Lord’s  Mother  ?  If  she  suffered  not  scandal  at  our  Lord’s  pas¬ 
sion,  then  Jesus  died  not  for  her  sins.  If  all  have  sinned  and 
need  the  glory  of  God,  being  justified  by  His  grace,  and  re¬ 
deemed,  certainly  Mary  at  that  time  was  scandalized.”  This  is 
precisely  the  argument  of  Basil,  as  contained  in  the  passage  given 


above :  his  statement  then  of  the  Blessed  Virgin’s  wavering  in 
faith,  instead  of  professing  to  be  the  tradition  of  a  doctrine,  car¬ 
ries  with  it  an  avowal  of  its  being  none  at  all. 

However,  I  am  not  unwilling  to  grant  that,  whereas  Scripture 
tells  us  that  all  were  scandalized  at  our  Lord's  passion,  there  was 
some  sort  of  traditional  interpretation  of  Simeon’s  words,  to  the 
effect  that  she  was  in  some  sense  included  in  that  trial.  How 
near  the  Apostolic  era  the  tradition  existed,  cannot  be  deter¬ 
mined  ;  but  such  a  belief  need  not  include  the  idea  of  sin  in  the 
Blessed  Virgin,  but  only  the  presence  of  temptation  and  darkness 
of  spirit.  This  tradition,  whatever  its  authority,  would  be  easily 
perverted,  so  as  actually  to  impute  sin  to  her,  by  such  reasonings 
as  that  of  Origen.  Origen  himself,  in  the  course  of  the  passage 
to  which  I  have  referred,  speaks  of  “  the  sword  ”  of  Simeon,  and 
is  the  first  to  do  so.  St.  Cyril,  who,  though  an  Alexandrian  as 
well  as  Origen,  represents  a  very  different  school  of  theology, 
has,  as  we  have  seen,  the  same  interpretation  for  the  piercing 
sword.  It  is  also  found  in  a  Homily  attributed  to  St.  Amphilo- 
chius ;  and  in  that  sixth  Oration  of  Proclus,  which,  according  to 
Tillemont  and  Ceillier,  is  not  to  be  considered  genuine.  It  is 
also  found  in  a  work  incorrectly  attributed  to  St.  Augustine. 

3.  St.  Chrysostom  is  par  excellence  the  Commentator  of  the 
Church.  As  Commentator  and  Preacher,  he,  of  all  the  Fathers, 
carries  about  him  the  most  intense  personality.  In  this  lies  his 
very  charm,  peculiar  to  himself.  He  is  ever  overflowing  with 
thought,  and  he  pours  it  forth  with  a  natural,  engaging  frankness, 
and  an  unwearied  freshness  and  vigor.  If  he  really  was  in  the 
practice  of  deeply  studying  and  carefully  criticising  what  he  de¬ 
livered  in  public,  he  had  in  perfection  the  rare  art  of  concealing 
his  art.  He  ever  speaks  from  himself,  not  of  course  without 
being  impregnatec  with  the  fulness  of  a  Catholic  training,  but, 
still,  not  speaking  by  rule,  but  as  if  “  trusting  the  lore  of  his  own 
loyal  heart.”  On  the  other  hand,  if  it  is  not  a  paradox  to  say  it, 
no  one  carries  with  him  so  little  of  the  science,  precision,  consist¬ 
ency,  gravity  of  a  Doctor  of  the  Church,  as  he  who  is  one  of  the 
greatest.  The  difficulties  are  well  known  which  he  has  occa¬ 
sioned  to  school  theologians  :  his  obiter  dicta  about  our  Lady  are 
among  them. 

On  the  whole  then  I  conclude  that  these  three  Fathers  supply 
no  evidence  that,  in  what  they  say  about  her  having  failed  in  faith 


I  yiratenai 


or  humility  on  certain  occasions  mentioned  in  Scripture,  they  are 
reporting  the  enunciations  of  Apostolical  Tradition. 

V. 

Moreover,  such  difficulties  as  the  above  are  not  uncommon  in 
the  writings  of  the  Fathers.  I  will  mention  several : 

1.  St.  Gregory  Nyssen  is  a  great  dogmatic  divine  ;  he  too,  like 
St.  Basil,  is  of  the  school  of  Origen :  and,  in  several  passages  of 

1  a* 

his  works,  he,  like  Origen,  declares  or  suggests  that  future  punish¬ 
ment  will  not  be  eternal.  Those  Anglicans  who  consider  St. 
Chrysostom’s  passages  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Gospels  to  be  a 
real  argument  against  the  Catholic  belief  of  the  Blessed  Virgin’s 
sinlessness,  should  explain  why  they  do  not  feel  St.  Gregory 
Nyssen’s  teaching,  in  his  Catechetical  Discourse,  an  argument 
agaihst  their  own  belief  in  the  eternity  of  punishment. 

2.  Again,  Anglicans  believe  in  the  proper  Divinity  of  our  Lord, 
in  spite  of  Bull’s  saying  of  the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers,  “  Nearly  all 
the  ancient  Catholics,  who  preceded  Arius,  have  the  appearance 
of  being  ignorant  of  the  invisible  and  incomprehensible  ( immen - 
sam )  nature  of  the  Son  of  God  ” ;  an  article  of  faith  expressly 
contained  in  the  Athanasian  Creed,  and  enforced  by  its  anathema. 

3.  The  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  an  integral  part  of  the 
fundamental  doctrine  of  Christianity ;  yet  St.  Basil,  in  the  fourth 
century,  apprehending  the  storm  of  controversy  which  its  asser¬ 
tion  would  raise,  refrained  from  asserting  it  on  an  occasion  when 
the  Arians  were  on  watch  as  to  what  he  would  say.  And,  on  his 
keeping  silence,  St.  Athanasius  took  his  part.  Such  inconsisten¬ 
cies  take  place  continually,  and  no  Catholic  doctrine  but  suffers 
from  them  at  times,  until  what  has  been  preserved  by  Tradition 
is  formally  pronounced  to  be  Apostolical  by  definition  of  the 
Church. 

VI. 

Before  concluding,  I  shall  briefly  take  notice  of  two  questions 
which  may  be  asked  me. 

1.  How  are  we  to  account  for  the  absence,  at  Antioch  or  Caesa¬ 
rea,  of  a  tradition  of  our  Lady’s  sinlessness  ?  I  answer  that  it 
was  obliterated  or  confused  for  the  time  by  the  Arian  troubles  in 
the  countries  in  which  those  sees  are  situated. 


134 


Note. 


It  is  not  surely  wonderful,  if,  in  Syria  and  Asia  Minor,  the  seat9  ’ 
in  the  fourth  century  of  A  nanism- and  Semi-Arianism,  the  prerog¬ 
atives  of  the  Mother  were  obscured  together  with  the  essential 
glory  of  the  Son,  or  if  they  who  denied  the  tradition  of  His 
divinity,  forgot  the  tradition  of  her  sinlessness.  Christians  in 
those  countries  and  times,  however  religious  themselves,  however 
orthodox  their  teachers,  were  necessarily  under  peculiar  disadvan¬ 
tages.  -  ’  • 

Now  let  it  be  observed  that  Basil  grew  up  in  the  very  midst  of- 
Semi-Arianism,  and  had  direct  relations  with  that  portion  of  its 
professors  who  had  been  reconciled  to  the  Church  and  accepted 
the  Homoiision.  It  is  not  wonderful  then,  if  he  had1  no  firm 
habitual  hold  upon  a  doctrine  which  (though  Apostolical)  in  his 
day  was  as  yet  so  much  in  the  background  all  over  Christendom, 
as  our  Lady’s  sinlesSness.  • 1  :  y 

As  to  Chrysostom,  not  only  was  he  in  close  relations  with  thed 
once  Semi-Arian  Cathedra  of  Antioch,  to  the  disowning  of  the 
rival  succession  thefe,  recognized  by  Rome  and  Alexandria,  but; 
as  his  writings  otherwise  show,  he  came  under  the  teaching  of  the 
celebrated  Antiochene  School,  celebrated,  that  is,  at  once  for  it£ 
method  of  Scripture  criticism,  and  (orthodox  as  it  was  itself)  fbr; 
the  successive  outbreaks  of  heresy  among  its  members.  These 
outbreaks  began  in  Paul  of  Samosata,  were  continued  in  the  Semi- 
Arian  pupils  of  Lucian,  and  ended  in  Nestorius.  The  famous 
Theodore  and  Diodorus,  of  the  same  school,  who,  though  not 
heretics  themselves,  have  a ‘bad  name  in  the  Church,  were,  Dio¬ 
dorus  the  master,  and  Theodore  the  fellow-pupil,  of  St.  Chrysos¬ 
tom.  (Vid.  Essay  on  Doctr.  Devel.  chap.  v.  §  2.)  Here  then  is  a 
natural  explanation,  why  St.  Chrysostom,  even  more  than  St.  Basil,' 
might  be  wanting,  great  doctor  as  he  was,  in  a  clear  perception 

of  the  place  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  in  the  Evangelical  Dispensa- 

■|  * 

tion. 

2.  How  are  we  to  account  for  the  passages  in  the  Gospels 
which  are  the  occasion  of  the  three  Fathers’  remarks  to  her  dis¬ 
paragement  ?  I  answer,  they  were  intended  to  discriminate  be¬ 
tween  our  Lord’s  work,  who  is  our  Teacher  and  Redeemer,  and' 
the  ministrative  office  of  His  Mother.  .  ■ 

As  to  the  words  of  Simeon,  indeed,  as  interpreted  by  St.  Basil 
and  St.  Cyril,  there  is  nothing  in,  the  sacred  text  which  obliges  us 
to  consider  the  “  sword  ”  to  mean  doubt  rather  than  anguish  ;  but 


I 


Note, 


IBS 

Matth.,jdi.  46-50,  with  its  parallels  Mark  iii,.  31-35,- and  Luke 
yiii.  19-21  :  and  with  Luke  xi.  27,^28,  and  John  ii.  4,  requires 
some- explanation'. 

,  I  observe  then>,  that,  when  our  Lord  commenced  His  ministry, 
and  during  it,  as  one  of  His  chief  self-sacrifices,  He  separated 
Himself  from  all  ties  of  earth,  in  order  to  fulfil  the  typical  idea  of 
a,  teacher  and  priest;  and  to  give  an  example  to  His  priests 
after  Him  ;  and  especially,  to  manifest  by  this  action  the  cardinal 
truth,  as  expressed  by  the  Prophet,  “  I  am  the  Lord,  and  there  is 
no  Saviour  besides  Me.”  As  to  His  Priests,  they,  after  Him,  were 
to  be  of  the  order  of  that  Melchizedech  who  was. “  without  .father 
and  without  mother”;,  for  “no  man,  being  a  soldier  to  God, 
entangleth  himself  with  secular  business  ”  ;  ;and  “  no  man  putting 
fiis  hand  to  the  plough,  and  looking  back,  is  fit  for  the  kingdom  of 
God.”  Again,  as  to  the  Levites,  who  were  His  types  in  the,  ,  Old 
Law,  there  was  that  honorable  history  of  their  zeal  for  God,  when 
they  even,  slew  their  own  brethren  and  companions  who  had  com¬ 
mitted  idolatry ;  “  who  said  to  his  father  and  to  his  mother,  I  do 
not  know  you,  and  to  his  brethren,  I  know  you  not,  and  their  own 
children  they  have  not  known.”  To  this  His  separation  even  from 
His  Mother  He  refers  by  anticipation  at  twelve  years  old  in  His 
words,  “  How  is  it  that  you  sought  Me  ?  Did  you  not  know  that 
I  must  be  about  My  Father’s  business  ?  ” 

The  separation  from  her,  with  whom  He  had  lived  thirty  years 
and  more,  was  not  to  last  beyond  the  time  of  His  ministry.  She 
seems  to  have  been  surprised  when  she  first  heard  of  it,  for  St. 
Luke  says,  on  occasion  of  His  staying  in  the  Temple,  “they 
understood  not  the  word  that  He  spoke  to  them.”  Nay,  she 
seems  hardly  to  have  understood  it  at  the  marriage-feast ;  but 
He,  in  dwelling  on  it  more  distinctly  then,  implied  also  that  it  was 
not  to  last  long.  He  said,  “  Woman,  what  have  I  to  do  with 
thee  ?  My  hour  is  not  yet  come,”  that  is,  the  hour  of  His  triumph, 
when  His  Mother  was  to  take  her  predestined  place  in  His  king¬ 
dom.  In  saying  the  hour  was  not  yet  come,  He  implied  that  the 
hour  would  come  when  He  would  have  to  “  do  with  her,”  and 
she  might  ask  and  obtain  from  Him  miracles.  Accordingly,  St. 
Augustine  thinks  that  that  hour  had  come,  when  He  said  upon 
the  Cross,  “  Consummatum  est,”  and,  after  this  ceremonial  es¬ 
trangement  of  years.  He  recognized  His  Mother  and.  committed 
her  to  the  beloved  disciple.  Thus,  by  marking  out  the  beginning 


136 


Note . 


and  the  end  of  the  period  of  exception,  during  which  she  could 
not  exert  her  influence  upon  Him,  He  signifies  more  clearly  :by 
the  contrast,  that  her  presence  with  Him,  and  Her  power,  was  to 
be  the  rule  of  His  kingdom.  In  a  higher  sense  than  He  spoke 
to  the  Apostles,  He  seems  to  address  her  in  the  words,  “  Because 
I  have  spoken  these  things,  sorrow  hath  filled  your  heart.  But  I 
will  see  you  again,  and  your  heart  shall  rejoice,  and  your  joy  no 
man  shall  take  from  you.”  (  Vid.  Sermon  iii.  in  Sermons  on  Sub- 
jCi  ts  of  the  Day.  Also  the  comment  of  St.  Irenaeus,  etc.,  upon 
John  ii.  4,  in  my  note  on  Athanas.  Orat.  iii.  41.) 

Also,  I  might  have  added  the  passage  in  Tertullian,  Carn. 
Christ.  §  7,  as  illustrating,  by  its  contrast  with  §  17  (quoted  above,  \ 
p.  34),  the  distinction  between  doctrinal  tradition  and  personal 
opinion,  if  it  were  clear  to  me  that  he  included  the  Blessed  Virgin 
in  the  unbelief  which  he  imputes  to  our  Lord’s  brethren  ;  on  the 
contrary,  he  expressly  separates  her  off  from  them.  The  passage 
runs  thus  on  the  text,  “  Who  is  My  Mother?  and  who  are  My 
Brethren  ?  ” 

“  The  Lord’s  brothers  had  not  believed  in  Him,  as  is  contained  * 
in  the  Gospel  published  before  Marcion.  His  Mother,  equally,  is 
not  described  (non  demonstratur)  as  having  adhered  to  Him , 
whereas  other  Marthas  and  Marys  are  frequent  in  intercourse  " 
with  him.  In  this  place  at  length  their  (eorum)  incredulity  is 
evident;  while  He  was  teaching  the  way  of  life,  was  preaching 
the  kingdom  of  God,  was  working  for  the  cure  of  ailments  and 
diseases,  though  strangers  were  riveted  to  Him,  these,  so  much 
the  nearest  to  Him  (tarn  proximi),  were  away.  At  length  they  I 
come  upon  Him,  and  stand  without,  nor  enter,  not  reckoning  for¬ 
sooth  on  what  was  going  on  within.” 


It  may  be  added  to  the  above,  that  Father  Hippolyto  Maracci, 
in  his  “  Vindicatio  Chrysostomica,”  arguing  in  behalf  of  St. 
Chrysostom’s  belief  in  the  Blessed  Virgin’s  Immaculate  Concep¬ 
tion,  maintains  that  a  real  belief  in  that  doctrine  is  compatible 
with  an  admission  that  she  was  not  free  from  venial  sin,  granting 
for  argument’s  sake  that  St.  Chrysostom  held  the  latter  doctrine. 
If  this  be  so,  it  follows  that  we  cannot  at  once  conclude  that 
either  he  or  the  other  two  Fathers  deny  the  doctrine  of  the 
Immaculate  Conception,  because  here  and  there  in  their  writings 
they  impute  to  the  Blessed  Virgin  infirmities  or  faults. 


BOSTON  COLLEGE 


3  9031  025  82841 


29018 


q 


The  Life  of  Christ. 


REV.  WALTER  ELLIOTT,  C.S.P. 


Over  1,000  Illustrations.  800  pages. 


I.  1  t 


DOES  NOT  CIRCULATE 


N£  W  >v\  5t/  , 


B%rko/ 


Boston  College  Library 

Chestnut  Hill  67,  Mass. 


Books  may  be  kept  for  two  weeks  unless  a 
shorter  period  is  specified. 

If  you  cannot  find  what  you  want,  inquire  at 
the  circulation  desk  for  assistance, 


m  % 


M 


* 


A j, ,  .  \* 
I  i 


4 


*  & 


THE  CATHOLIC  WORLD. 


PUBLISHED  BY  THE  PAUUST  FATHERS. 


ESTABLISHED,  1865 


.  A  Monthly  Magazine  of  General 
Literature  and  Science . 

Contains  every  month  timely  papers  by  the  ablest 
Catholic  writers  in  America  and  Great  Britain  on  the  liv- 


